From pycyn@aol.com Sat Aug 12 08:39:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2329 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2000 15:39:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Aug 2000 15:39:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Aug 2000 15:39:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.36.9fa3b6a (4320) for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36.9fa3b6a.26c6c9ac@aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:39:24 EDT Subject: emacs etc. To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3920 emacs must be one of the longest running aplications in computer history, and the debate about it is as long. When I got my first home computer around twenty years ago people were already arguing that I should have emacs rather than whatever pitiful thing I had (Wordstar, I recall -- talk about weird programs). The dispute was already between wonks and users and does not seem to have changed. emacs can do everything, but, at least then -- and some comments suggest still now -- takes forever to do anything (four keystrokes to get a capital at one time -- but only two more for Glagogithic). So the technicall (but not otherwise) literate went for the power and the slumps who had to actually write something went for ease (relatively speaking -- each new generation of Word or WordPerfect (Wordstar doesn't show up much anymore) gets a bit more emacsy in power -- and complexity. When I get around to it I will record that there is a vim tool and that some folks find that less than ideal, regardless how well the tool works.