On 2009-09-01 14:51 +0000, Kris Malfettone wrote: > Vim works fine without cygwin on windows and I am sure emacs or its > various derivitives have cygwin-less windows ports as well.
I never liked emacs. Joe-bindings are half emacs, half wordstar, but I just can't stand emacs' own bindings, beyond the basic de facto standard unix movement bindings. Years ago, I tried to start usin emacs, but just couldn't. Too crippled. It's like an OS missing the editor. ^X combos are awful hand-twisters, and it seems ^X is hard-coded (at least in GNU emacs) in many places, so can't be remapped to something more useful (in joe: forward word). Another annoyance was, well, Escape Meta Alt Control Shift, how you needed one binding for search forward, another for search backward, third for replace forward, and so on, these not even including a case-sensitivity toggle. In joe, otoh, the single search function just queries the options. There were various other annoyances, like the syntax highlighter not having the concept of numbers, etc. So I doubt I'll be going for emacs, if I can find something else. Joe would be the best, but it doesn't run natively on Windows. And, since not running in a terminal, something not contstrained by the text terminal would be nice, for displaying automatic folds, etc. Vi, well, it's from such a different world that I don't dislike it like emacs, but never really “got it” either. -- Tuomo
