Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:51:09 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, jdp@polstra.com, nate@sneezy.sri.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GAS question Message-ID: <199603192051.NAA04951@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199603192030.NAA24685@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199603192021.NAA04845@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199603192030.NAA24685@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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. > > VC++ has a 2-4M footprint... or, actually, "Microsoft Developer Studio" > has that footprint. My machine that it's installed on has 16M, but 12 > of that is for Windows 95 and the broken VCACHE code for cache utilization > backoff (that isn't fixed, even in their most recent update, publically > available soon). Fair enough. XEmacs has a 2-4MB footprint. But, X has an 8MB footprint, and FreeBSD a 4MB footprint, so we have about the same memory footprint. > If I run an FFS FS under Win95 (which I do) and crank the VCACHE > parameters down, I can run in 8M. But like GCC, 8M slows the > compiles down compared with 16M. I can run XEmacs in 8MB too, but it *really* slows the compiles down due to thrashing. :) > > > 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. :) > > No thanks; i'm only interested in the IDE part. I'd like to substitute > the editor for "vi" (like I do using the Microsoft tools). 'vi' is incapable of doing all of the necessary work. Can you replace the editor in VC++ with vi? Can you replace it with *any* editor? (My biggest beef with most PC tools is that you can't replace the editor with your editor of choice.) > > > 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 shipping, and are now superceded by the pending VC++ 4.1 release. > > This is retail price. This is not what you pay for an MSDN Level 2 > SDK/DDK/VC++ subscription. I think I paid $695/yr for my L2 kit, plus another $495/yr for the subscription. > > Because the development team and OS team are completely separate, and > > have completely different release schedules. It makes no sense to have > > force the OS development group to rush/delay their release to sync up > > with the compiler group. > > No, but vive-versa makes sense: after all, I really want the compiler > that compiled the OS, not some bastard version that might in fact be > unable to compile the OS properly (not like anyone tests these things > anyway, if the process is decoupled). VC++ isn't the compiler the OS team uses. They use a command line compiler that is distributed with the L2 kit, not VC. (This according to someone who works at M$ in their OS group.) > > You're arguements against using Emacs apply as well to VC++, so are > > moot. > > Not so. I can click Icon's and menus without having to remember it. You can do that in XEmacs too. Don't confuse the old Emacs with the newer XEmacs release. It's the reason I switched from vi. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603192051.NAA04951>