Re: Xemacs needs a real maintainer
Quoting Uwe Brauer <email@example.com>:
> On 9 Mar 2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Uwe Brauer <email@example.com> writes:
> >> You are kidding? Xemacs is still in some ways superior to emacs and
> >> giving up Xemacs is making debian *less* attractive.
> > Just curious. Any example of how XEmacs is in some ways superior to
> > Emacs? (this is a serious question). Thanks.
> 1. The graphics and fonts: I use a package which allows me to display
> mathematical formlas in semi-WYSIWYG way, called x-symbol. It works
> now, after 6 years in emacs, but still it works better (at least
> when I tested it last time) in xemacs than in emacs.
This might be true. It is said that XEmacs renders fast, at least,
and no real effort is done toward optimization.
> 2. Mule: Xemacs still has the option of a mule free version, so
> avoiding any crashed due to coding problems.
Mule in Emacs in not the same as the one in XEmacs, so a mule-free
version might not be relevant.
> 3. Mail: the excellent vm package worked without problems in both
> emacs version till version 19.34, (* years ago). Now it works more
> or less with the emacs version (the problem is the mule
> implementation of emacs) but still attached graphics are not as
> nicely displayed if at all as they are in xemacs.
I guess you mean displaying graphic files?
> 4. Toolbars, there are a couple of nice packages enhancing the
> toolbar, alas they only work with xemacs.
However, following both XEmacs and Emacs development lists,
it seems to me that XEmacs is not doing much progress these
days, especially because of a lack of manpower.
On the contrary, the GNU Emacs teem is very productive and
Emacs is not only catching up (multi tty) but also brings nice new
features like bidirectional editing, nifty gtk2 widgets,
configurable fringes, and so.
That said, both are nice tools.