On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:22:38PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Micha Feigin <michf@post.tau.ac.il> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 19:43, Tom wrote: > > > [Sunday 19 October 2003 19:09] John Hasler: > > > > > > > > To start with, it should be graphical, so vim, emacs and the like > > > > > are no option to me... > > > > > > > > What do you mean by graphical? Emacs has menus, icons, cut&paste > > > > with the mouse, mouse control of the cursor, etc. What is it that > > > > people mean by a "graphical" editor? > > > > > > Well... Built with widgets? :-s > > > > > > Somehow, I expected this reply. It's more of a look-n-feel thing. I > > > don't mind console apps, but for some purposes, I like the "graphical" > > > approach better. It's not (only) about being able to control things > > > using the mouse etc. > > > > > > > Its probably not what you are looking for, but on this note there is > > xemacs which is much more graphical, and there is also a build of xemacs > > based on gtk (don't know if 1 or 2) > > Not to start a flame war, but I don't think XEmacs is more graphical > than Emacs21 (Emacs20, yes, but not Emacs21). I use gnu emacs, but I have to admit that Xemacs is still a bit more graphical. For example Xemacs has minesweeper as a game and it actually looks like minesweeper. Also the nicer versions of tetris and snake in emacs CVS are from Xemacs (and aren't in version 21 yet). Again there are a lot more options accessible through the menus and toolbars in Xemacs. For example all of customize is accessible through the menubar (nested menubar things). And finally Xemacs has tabs for switching between different buffers (like in mozilla). I still use gnu emacs though, because I like how it works. And I sometimes feel that Xemacs is a bit buggier (not segfaulting bugs, just glitches). Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> http://www.crasseux.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature