From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-03-20T06:41:22+09:00
Subject: Re: SciTE Alternatives

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:06:22AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
> >  
> >>I for one don't like jEdit.
> >>
> >>Too heavy.
> >>
> >>
> >>How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
> >>    
> >
> >Vim?
> >  
> Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned the 
> old "vi", you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that's been 
> tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin XEmacs have 
> a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux, Windows, Macs, 
> Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that matter, though, so 
> does Vim's "gvim" variant. (Notepad, mouse, Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris 
> and probably BSD).

I beg to differ.  Installed size for Vim as reported by APT: 1408 bytes.
Installed size for GNU Emacs as reported by APT: 5924 bytes.  Last I
checked, including all dependencies, Emacs took up more than 80MB of
drive space, and Vim less than 20MB.  It looks to me like Vim is getting
about *one fifth* as heavy as Emacs these days.  I also tend to be less
prone to RSI when I'm not using Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift.

If Emacs is what works for you, go for it.  Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim.  I just disagree that they're in the
same realm of "heavy".

By the way, yes -- XEmacs will run on FreeBSD, as does GVim (or however
the official capitalization goes).

  
> 
> Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost any 
> programmer can walk up to and use. There are some definitely distinctive 
> and breakthrough concepts in editors for programmers, though. Check out 
> Leo for another way to do it. :)

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley