Re: Xemacs needs a real maintainer
On 10 Mar 2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Mule in Emacs in not the same as the one in XEmacs, so a mule-free
> version might not be relevant.
A part from BIDI support what is different, I remembered when Mule
started (officially) xemacs was far less buggy then emacs.
>> 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?
> 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
well the 21.5.x seems to be sort of buggy, but right manpower is
limited in Xemacs.
> 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 is true, the lack of BIDI support is especially annoying, however
some years ago there was a conference about this issue and people
working in BIDI were not willing to do anything for Xemacs.
I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package
system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing similar.
> That said, both are nice tools.
Right, both have their strong sides and their weak points, but I
insist, removing Xemacs, would harm the Debian project.
But this was not your point of course.
> -- Jérôme Marant