On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Some people (Dennis??) like built-in extension languages. But I guess
> that's for heavy text scripting etc. I don't personally use such, but
> it could be useful. THE uses Rexx, VIM has VIMscript (or can use Lua),
> Emacs has ELisp, etc. etc.
>
>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>>> At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>>
- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
please
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
>> At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>
>>>- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
>>>please forgive me.)
>>
>> EMACS? Like the operating system
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote:
>
>>2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines
>>used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
>
> IMHO, authors of FreeDOS related programs shou
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов wrote:
> Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
> 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as
> standard text editor?
No. The default is fine. The whole world doesn't need all
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>>- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
>>please forgive me.)
>
> EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? >:-}
> (Doesn't EMACS sta
> Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive?
> PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
> PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare.
FreeDOS will inherently use ~60K more then MSDOS as command.com swaps
only to XMS or not at all.
> If
Op 29-1-2013 20:02, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
> PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
> PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS
> is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there
> is nothing wrong with asking
Tom,
Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive?
PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS
is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there
is nothing w
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
>please forgive me.)
EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? >:-}
(Doesn't EMACS stand for "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping"? :-P
>- An edit
At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote:
>Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
>1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text
>editor as standard text editor?
Well, not the greatest fan of the FreeDOS EDIT, but
> On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>>> - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
>> FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
> Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea.
> I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much
> of a memory hog where it w
On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>> - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
> FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea.
I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much
of a memory hog where it will not bo
The FreeDOS EDIT clone is perfectly sufficient for basic editing
purposes. The one thing it could really use is optimization - partly
for performance (it's rather balky on my 10MHz 286, where EDIT is
perfectly fine,) but mostly for memory usage (it's about the same size
as the whole QBASIC package
> - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
> - Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell
> phone laying around nearby?
you are right. but wtf will I use a 128K machine for if I have a
iPhone around ?
> - An e
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bruce.bowman tds.net
wrote:
>>The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit*
>>(as opposed to view) a larger file?
>
> Often enough that I want it.
Fair enough. What are you editing when you do?
> Bruce
__
Dennis
https://plus.google.com
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
> - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
> please forgive me.)
Fundamentally, Gnu Emacs is a Lisp interpreter, and most of the editor
is written in Lisp.
But while you may not go the Emacs route, how do you
>The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit*
>(as opposed to view) a larger file?
Often enough that I want it.
Bruce
--
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Wi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, bruce.bowman tds.net
wrote:
> My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their
> restrictions on file size. A new editor should page the file in from
> disk as needed so as to avoid this restriction.
The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How
Most people have a favorite editor already; you have an "uphill battle"
if you think that one editor can replace the rest. Here are some
comments on your feature list:
- 8088 class machines should be supported. There is nothing in the
80286 or 80386 opcode set that should be required for a g
El 29/01/2013 11:11 a.m., bruce.bowman tds.net escribio':
> Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the
> following things don't strike me as particularly important:
>
> -- external fonts
> -- what language it was written in
> -- built-in BASIC interpreter
> -- calendar
>
> My bi
Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the
following things don't strike me as particularly important:
-- external fonts
-- what language it was written in
-- built-in BASIC interpreter
-- calendar
My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their
restrictions o
Hi. I got all four copies of this email that you crossposted to the
FreeDOS lists. Please don't spam.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов wrote:
> Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
> 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more power
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text
editor as standard text editor?
2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used
only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
3. Editor mus
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as
standard text editor?
2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only
by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
3. Editor mus
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as
standard text editor?
2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only
by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
3. Editor mus
26 matches
Mail list logo
