On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Oliver Doepner wrote: > <rant> > Emacs MULE sucks. It makes me really angry how old-fashioned and > complicated this works. WTF do we need proportional fonts (as in Emacs-21) > if the Unicode support is still so poor. > </rant>
It can't be denied that Emacs lost much of its conceptual elegance and robustness when the MULE work was integrated (though MULE can of course be switched of, which doesn't help you towards UTF-8 support however). > When will it be fixed? VIM6 is supposedly much better now, since it uses > the UCS-fonts in an xterm and is fully UTF8-enabled (as Markus Kuhn > reported several times on this list). > > But of course it's not the most attractive sort of sport to learn all the > key bindings and other bits and pieces of vi(m) if you used to be happy > just with emacs/jed/uemacs. You might want to have another look at vim 6. Read the manual and perhaps start to see that it is now *far* more than just a vi clone. It takes less than an hour to find and memorize vim equivalents for all your favourite emacs keystrokes, and it has many features like X11 support and syntax high-lighting that characterized emacs so far well above the other plain and simple text editors (like vi, pico, joe, microemacs). I suggest you give vim 6 a serious try tonight. Perhaps by the time Emacs is finally fully UTF-8 aware, you'll hardly want to use it any more ... Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
