Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why go nano when you can go micro?

Expand Messages
  • thundt
    Hey, there s one thing I missed: What s the motivation for nano-izing MicroEmacs? Beyond the challenge of squeezing things into small packages :-) There s
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey, there's one thing I missed: What's the motivation for nano-izing
      MicroEmacs? Beyond the challenge of squeezing things into small
      packages :-)

      There's always the original uemacs... from the era of PC XTs :-)

      C:\ETSREP~1>ls -l \bin\ue*
      total 78kB
      -rwxa----rwxd Administrators 75851 Mar 20 1996 \bin\UEMACS.EXE
      -rwxa----rwxd Administrators 2055 Dec 01 1998 \bin\uemacs.txt


      Regards

      -Tom Hundt
    • Steven Phillips
      ... Having said that uemacs v4 for windows (which is the only version supporting long file names etc) is 469Kb, i.e. larger and JASSPAs MicroEmacs so ne32 at
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Having said that we have still not achieved the
        > small footprint size that I would like which is
        > <100K. There is a lot more baggage now which makes
        > it more difficult to reduce.

        Having said that uemacs v4 for windows (which is the only version supporting
        long file names etc) is 469Kb, i.e. larger and JASSPAs MicroEmacs so ne32 at
        <200kb is significantly smaller than uemacs!

        Steve
      • Jon Green
        A number of motivations for playing with nano:- a. Does not require an install process - just run. Nice for dumping onto somebody elses machine and running.
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 25, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          A number of motivations for playing with nano:-

          a. Does not require an install process - just run.
          Nice for dumping onto somebody elses machine and
          running. This is probably because I have emacs
          burnt into my fingers and seem to be totaly
          incapable of using anything else without getting
          totally frustrated ! Setting up the macros is
          a pain and they will not fit on a floppy.
          b. Quick start up - can use as default editor for
          CVS and things like that. i.e. the interactive
          information entry prompt.
          c. Could use uemacs, but we have diverged and there
          are quite a lot of subtle differences in behaviour
          that are annoying (i.e. file completion and default
          bindings).

          Having said that we have still not achieved the
          small footprint size that I would like which is
          <100K. There is a lot more baggage now which makes
          it more difficult to reduce.
          Regards
          Jon.

          thundt wrote:
          >
          > Hey, there's one thing I missed: What's the motivation for nano-izing
          > MicroEmacs? Beyond the challenge of squeezing things into small
          > packages :-)
          >
          > There's always the original uemacs... from the era of PC XTs :-)
          >
          > C:\ETSREP~1>ls -l \bin\ue*
          > total 78kB
          > -rwxa----rwxd Administrators 75851 Mar 20 1996 \bin\UEMACS.EXE
          > -rwxa----rwxd Administrators 2055 Dec 01 1998 \bin\uemacs.txt
          >
          > Regards
          >
          > -Tom Hundt
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.