From lex@cc.gatech.edu Mon Aug 21 23:10:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27970 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2000 06:10:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2000 06:10:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail11.disney.com) (208.246.35.55) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2000 06:10:35 -0000 Received: from pain.corp.disney.com (pain.corp.disney.com [153.7.231.100]) by mail11.disney.com (Switch-2.0.1/Switch-2.0.1) with SMTP id e7M68t120869 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ford.wdi.disney.com by pain.corp.disney.com with ESMTP for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:58:59 -0700 Received: from nufat.rd.wdi.disney.com (nufat [206.16.11.70]) by ford.wdi.disney.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/D1) with ESMTP id WAA20077 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aSqueakSystem (lex@cologne [255.255.255.255]) by nufat.rd.wdi.disney.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA580455 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200008220559.WAA580455@nufat.rd.wdi.disney.com> X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.2447 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:42:27 +0300 Subject: Re: [lojban] emacs etc. To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Lex Spoon" pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 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). This is too harsh. Emacs is extremely fast once you learn it. Whenever I have to write a huge volume of text, I try to do it in Emacs. -Lex