🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: an earlier posting about why Gnu *probably* wouldn't work on an ST.

What I was really trying to say was GNU_EMACS needs the Lisp functions
to remain such a wonderful package.  I was responding to a question
about when someone was planning to port GNU, without lisp, to the ST.
I don't think that port would be worth it.  It would be a step
backwards for GNU.  As for porting it to the ST.  My 1040 only has
about 896K left when it loads without DAs.  Sounds like a lot doesn't
it?  Try loading a 600k application, up to 100K of source files, and
then expect the ST to let you compile and link those modules without
exiting.  The linker can run in 128K, but with large compilations it
needs 256K.  Let's see 896 - 600 - 256 = 40.  Given the problems with
malloc and free on the ST, that 40K is gone in no time.

BTW I have been using uEmacs 37 which includes a Cmode, a
non-braindamaged word wrap and fill (i.e. it understands that a word
includes punctuation marks when it wraps and that sentences are
terminated with two spaces when it fills).  This version also supports
the store macro function which allows you to write routines that are a
little more useful than the record keyboard macro can be but still no
conditionals or loops.

Now for the other side.  Unipress has a Gosling EMACS that works on an
IBM-PC (full memory I believe) and needs a hard drive.  But like
someone said, it doesn't support the full lisp that GNU has.  And I
use that lisp code and Info for my students who write essays with
GNU_EMACS.  Perhaps with some anti-C maneuvering (overlays on the hard
drive), GNU_EMACS could be ported complete with "peaches en regalia"
(F.Z.).  *8^}