Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) (Developers)

posted by Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 04.04.2009, 20:10

> Eighty Megabytes And Constantly Swapping :-)
Oh, so now it's 80, eh? ;-)

I just checked on this machine, 22.3 seems to use almost 8 MB just to start up (even though I compiled -Os to save space). Obviously would be a little painful on my 486 (640k + 7 MB extended RAM = not quite 8 MB), esp. since I'd probably be swapping like mad!

P.S. Was (crazily) curious about Win 3.1 Emacsen recently, found JED 0.98-4, notGNU, and heard (but didn't find) GNU Emacs 19.27 EMX for OS/2 (sadly, I'll bet Steve knew where to find it, sigh) that supposedly ran under RSHELL (or DOS with RSX).

> Gnu Emacs contributor Eric S. Raymond was going on a while back about what
> Emacs got wrong, and comparing the virtues of Lisp and Python. I suggested
> he rewrite Emacs to use Python as the underlying language instead of Lisp,
> and the response was "Don't tempt me!"
He claims to have written more Elisp code than anyone. But yes, he's a bit eccentric ("we don't need the GPL anymore", uh what?)

> Emacs using Lisp made sense at the time. Lisp was designed for string
> processing, which is essentially what an editor does, and the versions of
> Lisp on a couple of early Emacs targets were much better suited for the
> task than writing Emacs in something else would have been.
Well, Richard Stallman basically invented Emacs, and he worked at MIT in the AI Lab using Lisp. That's probably the only real reason for using it.

> Eric also mentioned liking Lua. There's an interesting open source editor
> called TextAdept which is a small kernel in C and a lot of Lua code. The
> author calls it "infinitely extensible". I'll have to drop Eric a note to
> see if he knows of it. He might just decide to make it look like Emacs...
> :-P
The ones that are extensible (i.e. not "ersatz") have all kinds of extension languages: Mocklisp, S-Lang, eLisp, and who knows what else! Sure Lua and Python are hot right now, but I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to use them. (In particular, I assume Python 3000 would be preferred, but that's not stable yet, is it?)

> But meanwhile, I wouldn't try to use Gnu Emacs under DOS. It's just way
> more than I would ever require.
I don't want to say it's overkill, but yeah, it does a lot! I like it, it's cool. Doesn't mean I can't also use others, though. ;-)

> I used to use Daniel Lawrence's
> MicroEMACS under DOS a good deal, and wrote or rewrote an assorment of
> macros for it. It built "out of the box" on my AT&T 3B1 under SysV R2,
> and it was nice to have the same editor on multiple platforms.
I think JASSPA is the best MicroEmacs variant, personally, unless you count things like VILE (which also has a good DOS port). My main favorite is TDE (BTW, URL change!), which is pretty small (160k via gcc -Os & upx --ultra-brute), but I'm open to trying others too. ;-)

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 234 users online (0 registered, 234 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum