On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 11:42:23AM +0800, Robert Storey wrote: > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:24:11 -0400 > Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> wrote: > > > Micha Feigin <michafeigin@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 04:22, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > > Not to start a flame war, but I don't think XEmacs is more > > > > graphical than Emacs21 (Emacs20, yes, but not Emacs21). > > > > > > I don't think I have used emacs21 but I don't remeber, so I can't > > > tell. I also don't know how their gui comapare. > > > Do you know the differences (main ones)? > > As far as I can tell, the most visible difference is that Xemacs seems > to do a better job with handling fonts. To be more specific, Xemacs has > more beautiful fonts and lets you change default font size. But Emacs is > also good, and of course has the advantage of working on the command > line as well as in X. There's no reason why you can't install both, > since the commands are almost identical. This is true, I have both installed, but almost never use Xemacs. For some reason Xemacs tries to overwrite my .emacs file each time I run it :) Xemacs also works on the command line. On the other hand gnu emacs has a menu bar even in the command line mode, while Xemacs doesn't... Also gnu emacs has very nice syntax highliting on the command line, but the syntax highliting in Xemacs is pretty minimal on the command line, etc. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> http://www.crasseux.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature