>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> Then why keep bringing it up? I just find it amusing
Steve> that the selling point of a unix-like system is that it is
Steve> modular and flexible so the first thing most people point
Steve> to is a Microsoft-esque monolith application. Yeah, that
Steve> works, great.
I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but I have to ask. As a newcomer
(and devout anti-zealot ;), it seems to me that Emacs is frequently
mischaracterized as just a text editor, just as Mozilla is mislabelled
just a browser. In both cases, they do that, but they're also
(primarily?) application development and deployment platforms. Emacs
seems to be a virtual lisp machine, and it's often used as such. So
why is the argument portayed as vi-the-text-editor
vs. emacs-the-text-editor?
To me, arguing over vi vs. emacs is like arguing over C the language
and Java the libraries + runtime environment + kitchen sink.
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I'm curious. Am I off-base, is
there a historical reason for this apparent mislabelling?
Thanks.
--
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it | Andrej Marjan
or who has said it, not even if I have said | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it, unless it agrees with your own reason and |
your own common sense. --buddha |
----------------------------------------------+-------------------
