home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.emacs
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!unidui!unidui!hm342st
- From: hm342st@unidui.uni-duisburg.de (Michael Staats)
- Subject: Re: MicroEMACS vs Freemacs.
- References: <DEAN.92Aug26174026@world.std.com> <714924187snx@crynwr.com>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 09:26:07 GMT
- Organization: Rechenzentrum Uni-Duisburg
- Message-ID: <hm342st.715253167@unidui>
- Lines: 33
-
- Hello,
-
- In <714924187snx@crynwr.com> nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
-
- >In article <DEAN.92Aug26174026@world.std.com> dean@world.std.com writes:
-
- > Please tell me, what is the difference between the GNU recommended Freemacs
- > Russell Nelson and MicroEMACS? Is MicroEMACS better? It gets quite a bit more
- > attention here on the newsgroup listings.
-
- >Freemacs is more compatible with GNU Emacs, and only edits files <
- >64K. MicroEMACS edits files that will fit in memory. MicroEMACS is
- >written in C and is portable to Unix. Freemacs is written in .ASM.
-
-
- Yes, that's correct, but there's more to say. Freemacs is progammable
- in a laguage called mint, which I've never seen somewhere else. Just
- as there are modes for TeX, C, ..., in Gnu emacs (written in lisp)
- there are modes for freemacs (written in mint). You can add many
- features to Freemacs programming it with mint. And mint is quite
- easy to understand, it took me about one weekend (plus some hours
- the week before) to make up a pascal mode for Freemacs, which is far
- from beeing perfect but not too bad. With MicroEmacs this is
- impossible, you'd have to change the C sources.
-
- So long
- Michael
-
- --
- Michael Staats, Student of Theoretical Physics, Uni-GH Duisburg
- Wenn dieser Artikel in Deutsch ist: Bitte entschuldigt meine Fehler.
- If this article is in english: Please excuse me for my mistakes.
- if (written_in_C(&article)) mistake_msg_to("michael@hal6000.uni-duisburg.de");
-