>
> > 4. I'm not an emacs weenie, but numerous people I respect are. I
> > favor a way to hook the browser into emacs (and whatever other
> > editors are powerful enough).
>
> Many people like emacs, but most descriptions that I've heard have
been
> discouraging.  Still, I see no reason why an IDE shouldn't allow
people to
> choose an alternate editor.
>

A minor nit, but I meant just the opposite. Emacs is not just an editor,
but is only a couple of notches short of being an operating system.
I meant that I'd favor a way to access the browser functionality from
within emacs, not vice versa. There would be an emacs interface just
as there was (say) a Tcl interface and a Win-GUI interface.

They say that the learning curve for emacs is "nearly vertical," and
that's a reasonable assessment. I don't use it because I switch
platforms a lot, it's not always readily available, and over the years
I've forgotten it.

But I do recognize that it's very likely the most powerful editor on
the planet. Having used TECO years ago -- for raw power (though not
for usability) they are probably in the same category. Do you recall
the conversational program ELIZA? Someone implemented that in TECO
years ago. (Yes, it was a text editor and a language, like emacs in
some ways.) That would probably be easier and better in emacs.

But enough reminiscing, and back to Ruby.

Hal

--
Hal Fulton


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.