10:32 a.m.
Hi,
Just wanted to say goodbye -- I've been an XEmacs user since, I think,
around 1996 or 1997. But, having recently switched to a Mac (I got tired
of writing Linux drivers just so that I can use my hardware and do
something real), I immediately started looking for a usable emacs. That
turned out to be Emacs.app (http://emacs-app.sourceforge.net/).
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I really liked XEmacs, its
development philosophy, and a number of features that don't work as well
in GNU Emacs. On the other hand, I find that there are more important
things in life than worrying about your editor's support for UTF-8,
dealing with window-resizing bugs or fighting alpha-level code just to
get antialiased fonts. The switch was also really painful, as old habits
die hard, and it turned out lots of my code was XEmacs-specific.
So, while I'm not entirely happy with political aspects of the move, I
made the switch. This means that I won't be using XEmacs anymore and I
won't be maintaining the escreen package anymore, either (not that I
really had to do any maintaining at all). It also means I won't be
developing vx-mode anymore, I'm hoping MacSpeech Dictate will be able to
replace that solution.
Here are some impressions that accumulated over the years:
Things I think are (or work) better in XEmacs:
-- apropos,
-- access to other documentation (those are minor things, but
for example describe-function isn't bound to a key by default, and
these things accumulate),
-- developer documentation,
-- extents,
In general, I enjoyed elisp coding much more under XEmacs.
Things I always hated in XEmacs:
-- building it. The whole mess of configure options, getting them
wrong several times, forgetting what the right ones were, etc.
-- having to build it, as the 21.4 distribution binaries are useless
in the real world (multilingual world that uses UTF-8),
-- the crashes.
Things that are better in Emacs.app:
-- It works. Meaning I can download the DMG, install it in 5 seconds,
and have an editor with UTF-8, antialiased fonts, that remembers
its window size and does not change it when switching elscreens.
And the most common misconception about XEmacs: "oh, I don't use XEmacs,
I want an emacs that I can use without X, in a terminal window as well".
I have one other observation to make before I leave the list. The amount
of energy that has been put into the AUCTeX packaging debates over the
years would easily have sufficed to find a workable solution and
maintain it.
Thanks for the very enjoyable 12 years or so, and thanks for all your
work. I wish XEmacs all the best in the future.
--J.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:28 p.m.
Jan Rychter <jan(a)rychter.com> writes:
Just wanted to say goodbye -- I've been an XEmacs user since, I
think,
around 1996 or 1997.
Few remarks from one that never managed the switch the other way round.
But, having recently switched to a Mac (I got tired of writing Linux
drivers just so that I can use my hardware and do something real), I
immediately started looking for a usable emacs. That turned out to be
Emacs.app (http://emacs-app.sourceforge.net/).
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I really liked XEmacs, its
development philosophy, and a number of features that don't work as
well in GNU Emacs.
Emacs App is not currently canonical GNU as far as I know, though it is
supposed to become integrated at one point of time.
So, while I'm not entirely happy with political aspects of the
move, I
made the switch.
I don't think that a user-level switch is that much of a political
statement. User numbers are not a value in itself. If they were,
nobody would start free software projects (since then the user number is
0).
Here are some impressions that accumulated over the years:
Things I think are (or work) better in XEmacs:
-- apropos,
-- access to other documentation (those are minor things, but
for example describe-function isn't bound to a key by default, and
these things accumulate),
Hm? How is it better not to bind describe-function to a key?
-- developer documentation,
I find my experience completely opposite.
Things I always hated in XEmacs:
-- building it. The whole mess of configure options, getting them
wrong several times, forgetting what the right ones were, etc.
But Emacs is not better in that regard, I think. A platform-specific
binary like Emacs.app is a different deal, and makes no statement about
the project as such.
I have one other observation to make before I leave the list. The
amount of energy that has been put into the AUCTeX packaging debates
over the years would easily have sufficed to find a workable solution
and maintain it.
There is the buzzphrase "quality time" for child raising: debating is a
small one-time investment independent from other such investments
without followup costs or commitment.
Anyway, the AUCTeX team found a workable solution and maintains it. In
spite of the bad vibes and occasional vilification from the XEmacs team,
XEmacs users appreciate it.
However, we can't work wonders. Where the basic functionality in XEmacs
is deficient (font locking comes into mind), there is not much except
pasting over the worst that we can do.
It is somewhat ironical that one of the roadblocks is the amount of red
tape that the XEmacs team wraps itself in, since they tend to
fingerpoint at the red tape of Emacs.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:06 p.m.
On Fri, May 02 2008, Jan Rychter wrote:
Things I think are (or work) better in XEmacs:
[...]
-- access to other documentation (those are minor things, but
for example describe-function isn't bound to a key by default, and
these things accumulate),
I don't know anything about Emacs.app, but in Emacs 22, we have...
,----[ C-h w describe-function RET ]
| describe-function is on C-h f, <f1> f, <help> f, <menu-bar>
| <help-menu> <describe> <describe-function> (describe-function)
`----
Bye, Reiner.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:52 a.m.
Jan writes:
having recently switched to a Mac, I immediately started looking
for a usable emacs. That turned out to be Emacs.app
(http://emacs-app.sourceforge.net/).
If you want full Mac integration, that's definitely a better choice
than XEmacs as it stands. I've tried to persuade jwz that that's a
good reason for him to start contributing again, but he claims he's
got better things to do. :-) On the other hand, according to Andrew
Choi, it's much easier to get these things done in XEmacs, so you
(and I!) might be surprised how fast we get some kind of Aqua port.
So, while I'm not entirely happy with political aspects of the
move, I made the switch.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Our philosophy is that you should use
the software that's best for you; you shouldn't worry about the
politics. This time it works against us -- we'll miss you! -- but
that's the way it should be.
This means that I won't be using XEmacs anymore and I
won't be maintaining the escreen package anymore, either (not that I
really had to do any maintaining at all). It also means I won't be
developing vx-mode anymore,
Noted.
I have one other observation to make before I leave the list. The
amount of energy that has been put into the AUCTeX packaging
debates over the years would easily have sufficed to find a
workable solution and maintain it.
*chuckle* Ah, but that was never about finding a solution to the
AUCTeX package as such. Our version is good enough for me and I
suspect for most casual TeX users. If it's not good enough for
somebody else, they can go get the AUCTeX project's tarball or build
from source. There never was a real problem *here* ... although some
members of the AUCTeX project obviously perceive one.
Not to mention that RSN we should have a nearly up-to-date version in
our CVS, done by people who care about both XEmacs and AUCTeX -- which
is the way it should be.
Thanks for your note, and feel free to drop by any time!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6047
days inactive
6048
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
David Kastrup -
Jan Rychter -
Reiner Steib -
Stephen J. Turnbull