Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:12:53 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	DT2 <dt2 AT hknet DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: rhide vs. emacs
In-Reply-To:	<3661e841.0@ruby.hknet.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981130120333.9825G-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, DT2 wrote:

> I'm a newbie, just installed DJGPP and Rhide, etc. etc. and was curious:
> what are the relative advantages of Rhide vs. Emacs?  Is one better than the
> other?

Careful: you risk sparking an editor war here ;-).

Each one of these two packages has its advantages and disadvantages.  

RHIDE is smaller, very similar to Borland's IDE, and (according to some 
people) easier to use.  Rhide also has an integrated debugger for DJGPP 
programs, which is important on DOS (on Windows you can always run a 
debugger in a separate DOS box).

Emacs is larger (20MB on disk), but has much more features, including 
support for every programming language you could think of.  It is also 
available on every platform you will ever meet, so you if you stick with 
it, you will never again need to learn another editor.  Emacs is 
developed by a large group of contributors world-wide, so IMHO it gains 
new features much faster.

How all those measure up is up to you to decide.

- Raw text -