Message-ID: <37AF9823.58C2@ns.sympatico.ca>
From: Klaas <klaas AT ns DOT sympatico DOT ca>
Organization: N/A
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: RHIDE AND EMACS...Which one is better?
References: <19990808174528 DOT 20888 DOT 00009160 AT ng-fe1 DOT aol DOT com> <934174532 DOT 375811 AT kyle DOT inet DOT net DOT nz> <37AEF07E DOT F8CD0F4A AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com> <37AF4F97 DOT 60D9 AT surfsouth DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:10:27 -0300
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.177.75.52
X-Trace: sapphire.mtt.net 934254601 142.177.75.52 (Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:10:01 ADT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:10:01 ADT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Chris Holmes wrote:
> 
> Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH] wrote:
> >
> > David Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > Orvbongat wrote in message <19990808174528 DOT 20888 DOT 00009160 AT ng-fe1 DOT aol DOT com>...
> > > >Which is one is a better IDE...Rhide or EMACS?
> > > A matter of opinion really.  I prefer RHIDE, because it has that familiar
> > > DOS feel, but I'm sure a UNIX boffin would be scoffing at this and would be
> > > able to name a thousand reasons which make emacs better.
> >
> >     Well, as I have used both extensively, I would say that Emacs is better for
> > editing code, if only for it's smart indention (which is configurable for your
> > indention style).  But RHIDE is much easier to setup/use [especially for users
> > of Borland C++ v3.1].  And the debugging capabilities in RHIDE just kick-ass.
> 
>   May I interject that Qedit, (I use the 92 version) is still the best
> editor out there?  It does auto-indenting based on file extension, etc.
> etc.  And is just sweet.
> 
>   -- signed, a young old fart.

How is the debugging?

-Mike