On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jan Schaumann wrote: > > There have been a few people that have claimed this. However, I've yet > > to see any sound examples where the simple tools combined together for a > > task were not better at it than some (as you put it) "bloatware" > > package. I'm sure it goes without saying, but just to make 100% we are > > comparing "best-of-breed" applications here right? > > <standard-counter-example for="unix-way-argument"> > Emacs. > </standard-counter-example>
Standard yes, but largely inaccurate. Almost every piece of functionality that emacs has over and above its basic text editing (and customization) capabilities (mail, mime processing, news reading, web browsing, ftp, ssh, games, language syntax modes, programming tools, etc) is the result of a separate elisp package designed to produce just that functionality. To the contrary, it seems to me that emacs is an excellent illustration of "the unix way". (Ok, ok so the executable is 6MB! :-) Chris Menzel
