From: mschulter AT DOT value DOT net (M. Schulter) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Which is better... EMACS or RHIDE? Date: 4 Aug 1997 20:53:44 GMT Organization: Value Net Internetwork Services Inc. Lines: 64 Message-ID: <5s5fgp$9r7$1@vnetnews.value.net> References: <33DD805E DOT DF5783BC AT ix DOT netcom DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: value.net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Art S. Kagel (kagel AT bloomberg DOT com) wrote: : Please let us not start the Emacs -vs- RHIDE -vs- VIM -vs- ...... holy : war again. Everyone just tell Perry why the use what they use, make a : recommendation and leave it at that. : : Art S. Kagel, kagel AT bloomberg DOT com Hi, there, and thanks for some very wise advice that not only might prevent some unnecessary and unpleasant use of bandwidth , but has helped me frame my own answer. Personally I use Emacs, but for reasons that might not apply to the average DJGPP user. To a great extent, I use it to program PostScript graphics in a text-based 32-bit DOS/DJGPP environment -- and also, now, to learn and design documents in TeX. To make the most of another comment, for me Emacs is indeed a sort of "Windows without Windows" -- it takes lots of disk space, uses quite a bit of RAM , but gives an immense amount of power in return for that disk space and RAM while providing a very Margo-friendly text-based interface. Being able to code a PostScript illustration or TeX document, press F7, say, and see a super-WYSIWYG preview image on screen _without leaving Emacs_ is a real treat, just about the equivalent of multitasking. While Emacs has a great C/C++ mode, which I use, really most of my passion is directed to PostScript programming (writing code to draw things), and also now to TeX. The fact that Emacs has a great TeX mode means a lot to me, but not necessarily to a DJGPP user who wants to run gdb without having to suspend Emacs. Of course, lots of real C/C++ programmers will say that Emacs is definitely the way to go, but my interests are specialized enough (or at least untypical enough) that I'm really not in a position to say what most DJGPP users would prefer, Emacs or RHIDE. The real moral I might draw is that DJGPP has outdone itself! It was meant as a C/C++ development suite, and along comes this desktop publisher and turns Emacs into some clone of Adobe Illustrator (or maybe, with TeX, something like FrameMaker) . All this may also bring out an important difference. RHIDE, as far as I understand, was designed specifically as a C/C++ IDE for DJGPP, with integrated debugging capabilities and the like. Emacs, in comparison, is designed as a more general editing/programming/general-computing environment, with support for C/C++ as just one among many modes -- also TeX, *roff, and so on. Also, RHIDE was designed specifically with DOS and the Borland IDE in mind; Emacs assumes an OS capable of true multiprocessing, and so does run into DOS-specific limitations. So maybe it isn't surprising that C/C++ people would be split on the RHIDE/Emacs question, while I can't resist that Emacs TeX mode and the general Shell Command and macro features. BTW, I do also enjoy playing "Towers of Hanoi" and "Eliza" . Maybe it's my equivalent of QUAKE. Most respectfully, Margo Schulter mschulter AT value DOT net