Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Tuukka Toivonen wrote:
>
> >12. Fast to start (-> small size, not bloated like Emacs)
>
> Emacs is not so slow. I think that a lot of people spoke about emacs and
> really use Xemacs (I couldn' t use Xemacs it' s really bloated). Did you
> tried GNU emacs?
I use XEmacs. I also have GNU Emacs installed, and it doesn't seem to
be any faster than XEmacs, in spite of the fact that XEmacs has been
built with MULE support and GNU Emacs hasn't.
In any case, startup time should be irrelevant. Once you have one
XEmacs process started, you can use gnuclient to connect to an
existing xemacs process. And you can suspend it when you're not using
it. You don't need to start XEmacs every time you wish to edit a file.
Also, if you don't have much need for running curses programs, you can
use shell-mode (which provides much better command-line editing than
bash's readline), and never have to leave XEmacs. [I know of people
who have /usr/local/bin/xemacs as their login shell].
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
