Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:20:07 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Orvbongat cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: RHIDE AND EMACS...Which one is better? In-Reply-To: <19990808174528.20888.00009160@ng-fe1.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 8 Aug 1999, Orvbongat wrote: > Which is one is a better IDE...Rhide or EMACS? These questions risk sparking religious wars ;-). Hopefully, this forum knows better... The answer is: it depends. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages; it's up to you to decide. Most of the features you'd expect, like automatic source indentation and syntax-driven highlighting, compilation from within the editor, support for several programming languages, etc.--are found in both of them. RHIDE is somewhat easier to use for a beginner (if you are used to Borland's IDE or to Wordstar-like keybindings, then RHIDE will be *much* easier for you to use). It includes an integrated debugger, which is based on the GDB debugging engine. The RHIDE distribution is also significantly smaller. Emacs has much more features, including some that have nothing to do with editing per se (for example, it has a built-in mailer and news groups reader, and even includes several games, like Snake and Tetris). In fact, features are added at such a high rate that it is almost impossible to be familiar with all of them. The latest version 20.4 supports editing non-English languages and mixing several languages in a single file (yes, even on DOS). Emacs is also available on many more platforms than RHIDE (so you'll never again will need to learn another editor). But there is no integrated debugger, unless you use the NTEmacs port which can run GDB in a way that allows debugging similar to RHIDE. Also, the distribution is very large, and the editor takes some time to get used to.