From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Mar 19 12:19:25 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA27554
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA27546
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04845; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:21:49 -0700
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:21:49 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199603192021.NAA04845@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith),
        kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, jdp@polstra.com,
        nate@sneezy.sri.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: GAS question
In-Reply-To: <199603191950.MAA24541@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199603190226.MAA27673@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
	<199603191950.MAA24541@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


[
Since I've been Cc'd in this message for a week now, I guess I can
jump in here. 
]

[ VC++ vs. Emacs IDE ]

> My personal bias comes from disliking the need to add memory to run
> applications (as opposed to something useful, like a kernel).  It's
> not so much the Emacs command set, per se, as the fact that it's a
> huge memory pig.

And VC++ isn't?  I can run Emacs IDE in a smaller memory footprint than
VC++ if I leave out X.

> I guess I could live with unguessable command syntax (how do you
> exit microEmacs, anyway?) if I had printed documentation.  Which
> I have for VC++.

For $150 + shipping, I could print out all of the XEmacs docs for
you. :)

> Hell, I'd even be willing to pay the same several hundred dollars
> I paid for VC++ just to get a comparable environment with printed
> documentation.

$VC++ 4.0 is $495 w/out documentation.  Docs are another $150 +
shipping, and are now superceded by the pending VC++ 4.1 release.

> > > Bitching about the user interface is a legitimate gripe, considering
> > > *ALL* UNIX boxes come with vi and *NOT* all UNIX boxes come with Emacs.
> > 
> > Not all Windows boxes come with VC either.  (Fortunately 8)
> 
> You're right; they don't come with a developement environment.  I
> don't know why this is fortunate, though: I see precious little
> difference between writing 0's vs. 1's and 0's to a > 600M CDROM,
> if they are masked instead of individually burned one-offs.  There
> is no difference in cost to Microsoft.

Because the development team and OS team are completely separate, and
have completely different release schedules.  It makes no sense to have
force the OS development group to rush/delay their release to sync up
with the compiler group.

You're arguements against using Emacs apply as well to VC++, so are
moot.


Nate