On Nov 16, 2013, at 12:01 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >Your first mail came with the argument that you think that >xemacs is more visually appealing than emacs. Honestly, emacs >is primarily a tool and not an optical gimmick. Visual >appearance does not bother most users, I'd guess. Most emacs >users use the terminal (-nw) mode anyway. I'm not going to argue for re-inclusion of XEmacs (but I won't argue against it either - it would be helpful for me testing some Emacs Lisp packages I care about). Despite being an old Lemacs and XEmacs user for years, I gave up on XEmacs back in 2008 in favor of GNU Emacs. I will dispute the terminal mode usage though. Most Emacs users I know of do use the graphical version. >And the beef I have with xemacs is that it's development >has factually ceased. Looking at the changes over the past >months, I see only marginal changes [1] but no real development. I agree that XEmacs's time has come and gone. -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature