Print Story Short sharp slop
Diary
By yicky yacky (Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:58:18 AM EST) emacs, MOTW, monkeys (all tags)

Yadda:

  • Emacs
  • Mountain of the week #2


Emacs

As a long-time vim-meddler and permanent searcher for the perfect text editor, I've decided to give emacs "a journalistic try" and write-up my experiences for an intranet bulletin-board (I'll probably post them somewhere online as well).

But I have a question.

As I investigated the issue, I delved deeper into the XEmacs / GNUEmacs split and am now confused. Which one: a.) should I try? b.) is the best? and c.) could be regarded as the canonical version?

 

-=+=-

 

Mountain Of the Week #2

This ...

... is Nanga Parbat [SummitPost Entry] in Pakistan.

It is the 9th highest mountain in the world (8126 m) and therefore one of the "Big 14" (14 summits over 8000m [26240 ft]). It is roughly here [zoomed-in view approximately matching image].

As an opposite to Kangchenjunga in the East, Nanga Parbat is the most western of the 8000m summits. Also like Kangchenjunga, while it has many sub-peaks of its own, it is somewhat isolated and not clustered as many of the other massive peaks are (number 9 on this image). For this reason these mountains have been called the pillars of the Himalaya.

Nanga Parbat is also the 14th highest peak by topographical prominence; a feat made much more impressive when one considers that the big Baltoro-Karakoram peaks (K2, the Gasherbrums, Broad Peak etc.) lie less than a hundred and twenty miles to east-north-east. The image shows the drops clearly, with the Indus River skirting around Nanga Parbat to the north-west. When ranked by Reduced Spire Measure (a scale purporting to measure local relief and steepness), Nanga Parbat is "the Daddy", coming in at number one.

"Nanga Parbat" means 'Naked Mountain' in Hindi, although Sherpas have also referred to it as "the mountain of the devil". Along with K2, it is frequently mentioned as the most dangerous peak on the planet; its fatality rate is currently listed as 28.24%; nearly one-in-three, and over three times higher than Everest's. However, many of these rates are biased by the failures of "the early years" and tend towards equality over the modern era as routes become established and techniques for specific sections optimised. In addition, far fewer people have attempted Nanga Parbat; something like just over two-hundred successful climbs versus ten times that number for Everest.

< snivel | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Short sharp slop | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Stuck in the past by cam (4.00 / 1) #1 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:07:35 AM EST
I use 20.7 which is pretty old now, but I got used to it, and my .emacs file works with it, and if I move machines it is easy to zip up the site-lisp directory and copy that across. I dont intend upgrading either, though I tend not to use it as much as I used to.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic


I'm using by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:13:09 AM EST
GNU Emacs version 20.3.1 here at "work."

I could never warm up to XEmacs but it's likely because I was brought up on the GNU version. That's likely a matter of personal taste I suppose.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob


Check the file size by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 3) #3 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:15:41 AM EST
The bigger emacs will be the one that emacs users think is better. Also, I hereby extend a preemptive "welcome back" for when you realize that emacs is, in fact, an operating system, not a text editor, and decide to come back to the One True Church.
-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.


Well, I'll be honest MNS by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #5 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:25:35 AM EST

I use GUI editors at least as often as I use vim, but I do use vim a lot, so I guess it counts.

You need not worry: I already have a whole (excessively-malloc()ed) pre-fabricated heap of prejudiced objections just built-up and ready to roll, but I've decided to give it a serious and fair try this time, in the name of impartiality (and the fact that I'm still convinced the perfect TE doesn't exist and I may have to write it at some point).


----
17 days left ...
[ Parent ]

I use BBEdit a lot by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 3) #6 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:30:49 AM EST

But in the end, I always end up copying and pasting whatever I did into vi, and for anything remote, I always use vim.

At this point, my problem with emacs isn't so much the bloatware that is emacs, itself, but rather the stinky zealots who subscribe to the emacs church. I applaud your effort to try to give emacs a fair shake, and remain confident that your fine taste and common decency will result in, at the least, a return to vim, and, at best, result in you creating a better text editor, particularly after you've messed with emacs enough to know what not to include in said application.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter that much by lm (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:21:06 AM EST
Unless modules you want exist for the flavor you didn't choose but not for the one you did choose.

I tend to prefer Xemacs because it contains fewer Stallmanisms.

But, really, it just doesn't matter.

Also, be prepared to be unproductive until you've worked with it enough to start to gain finger memory on common key combinations and start to think in lisp.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic


I figure by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #7 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:35:12 AM EST

that a month is fair. Fortunately, I have a reasonably lightweight period at the moment and can squeeze it in, hence I am. More disclosure: I'm not that happy about the lisp thing, to be honest, as it strikes me that it's one part of emacs that only exists that way because it always has. A more modern approach would have been to develop a native object model and then allow binding to it through any of a number of languages as specified by preference. However: I'm determined to be as fair as I can and "When in Rome ..." etc.


----
17 days left ...
[ Parent ]

Well by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #8 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:42:46 AM EST
Stallman was a big Lisp fan, hence Lisp it is. It's incredibly powerful if you have the time to hack about with it.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Well by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:51:50 AM EST
It's incredibly powerful if you have the time to hack about with it.

Well, that's the entirity of GNU in a nutshell, f'shure.


----
17 days left ...
[ Parent ]

Yeah, by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #18 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:38:16 AM EST
but it's still single threaded. That for me was the biggest problem with Emacs and why I don't have a current .emacs file of any degree of customisation for the stuff I noodle about with.

[ Parent ]

Are you using a little-endian machine? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #19 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:43:00 AM EST
If so that may be your actual problem.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

How dare you, sir! by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #20 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:50:42 AM EST
I have free range bytes which can associate in whatever form they please! Are you calling me an inhumane brute?

[ Parent ]

Free Range bytes??? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #21 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:55:56 AM EST
What OS are you running, CPM???

Lordy loo man, get with the times. Any modern-day big-endian machine supports a LII dual chache pipeline emulation layer that allows the GNU Emacs dotfile to run in multi-threaded mode. No need to muck about with that free-range-bytes 1970 "technology" hack.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

A Month?? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #14 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:08:05 AM EST
You won't even have time to perfect your emacs dot file in a month.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Then it'll fail by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:17:14 AM EST

----
17 days left ...
[ Parent ]

pico by Noogie Brown (4.00 / 1) #9 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:48:25 AM EST




Pico??? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 2) #11 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:51:28 AM EST
How about ed? Or joe?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

I still use plain old Emacs... by Metatone (4.00 / 1) #10 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:49:58 AM EST
but I'm told that XEmacs is a bit easier to interact with for someone new to the system and it has better relations with a GUI, if you use a GUI version. IMO, they are close enough in general that the only real reason to pick one or the other is a specific pre-arranged script set you want to use, or (like me) you've been using one for long enough that changing doesn't seem worth the effort.

I chose emacs over vi many moons ago because my brain works in "stateless" mode, so vi just irritated me.

Of course, since then things have evolved and I don't use half the power of any text editor, so I find the holy war boring.

What I will say is that my experience (there is a certain system I have to use vi on) is that switching from one to the other is not a small endeavour and so you're likely to find it very irritating unless you have the time to dedicate to relearning the way you do things.

And no, I don't think there is a compelling reason to switch in this day and age, both the vi and emacs families have evolved a bunch of features and forks and subsets to cover most people's needs.



Addendum... by Metatone (4.00 / 1) #13 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:55:38 AM EST
That doesn't mean to say I don't think someone couldn't write a better text editor, but I doubt someone happy with vim will find it in emacs and vice versa.

[ Parent ]

This isn't really by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:27:20 AM EST

a "new" thing. It happens biennially. Every so often I get irritated with all the text editors in both Christendom and the heathen lands and go walkabout to see what's out there. Every time I do this, I keep returning to the same subset happy in the knowledge that, as nigglesome as their corner cases might be, I'm not overlooking anything. People keep recommending editors but it's missing the point; there may well be editors out there I've not tried, but not many.

The significant omission is emacs. I've flirted with it, prodded it, turned it upside down and shaken it, but never really given it a serious look because I could tell what a chore it would be to give it a fair crack. Instead of doing the giant tour this time, I'm just going to give emacs a bash instead, probably the GNU variant.


----
17 days left ...
[ Parent ]

BRIEF by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #16 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:20:52 AM EST
Written by UnderWare, was the dogs.  Everything you wanted to do, youd could.




Gord I loved brief by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #23 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:03:18 PM EST
Was there ever a GUI version?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Not as far as I know. by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #24 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:24:15 PM EST
But for a command line DOS app it totally kicked arse!  Good compiler integration too.


[ Parent ]

Editors by ucblockhead (4.00 / 4) #22 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:01:43 PM EST
Which one: a.) should I try? b.) is the best? and c.) could be regarded as the canonical version?
a) vim b) vim c) vim
----
ウセーバラケダ


emacs by garlic (4.00 / 1) #25 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:17:18 PM EST
if your using emacs in a gui, I'd say go xemacs. gnuemacs is more 'canonical'. I like xemacs better, but they're pretty similar.



don't use XEmacs by martingale (4.00 / 1) #26 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:37:30 PM EST
GNU Emacs is having the edge IMHO at the moment. The main differences with XEmacs are the GUI and about 2% of the elisp functions. Unfortunately, those 2% are fairly often used by major modes, and its more likely that a mode author will first write the mode for Emacs, then try to port it to XEmacs if there's demand later. I believe there are also differences in package installation, where XEmacs might have the edge, but if you're using a linux which has a good Emacs install, you won't care about that.

If you're new to both, just start with GNU.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$


forgot by martingale (4.00 / 1) #27 Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:04:19 PM EST
One more thing. GNU Emacs loads a little faster than XEmacs on my Debian box. Don't know exactly what the deal is, but I was using XEmacs last year for a while then switched again, and it was pretty obvious.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]

Short sharp slop | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback