Message-Id:	<m0w4nD6-000S1sC@natacha.inti.edu.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	David McKee <david DOT mckee AT rtp DOT gtegsc DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:46:22 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Question about RHIDE and EMACS
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

David McKee <david DOT mckee AT rtp DOT gtegsc DOT com> wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone had any specific technical opinions 
> on which development environment was "better".  I have recently 
> learned xemacs on my SUN workstation at work and love it.  Still,
> if RHIDE is easy and integrated and intuitive, I certainly would
> like to know.  Thank you in advance.
 
  If you have time invested in learning a tool I sugest that don=B4t switc=
h to 
other because you=B4ll need to learn new things.
  I think that RHIDE is more easy to use but Emacs is more flexible.
  The "integration" with DJGPP is high in both (in Emacs you can enhance i=
t if 
you feel that isn=B4t enough because is programable).
  The "intuituve" word isn=B4t absolute, if you are accustomed to some beh=
avior 
it will look intuitive for you.
  I started learning C with MSC, used Quick C then I used BC++ 3.1 and I f=
ound 
it better and "intuitive" because is similar to Quick C and the old Turbo 
Pascal (I used it before of MSC) and then when I started using DJGPP RHIDE=
 
I saw it "intuitive" because is very (too much ;-) similar to BC++ 3.1. As=
 you 
can see what I name "intuitive" is just because I had experience with it, =
I 
guess that the same is for you.

SET
--------------- 0 --------------------------------
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET).
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -