On Sunday 09 December 2007, Gregg Irwin wrote: > I've always thought that we were 90% of the way there, since emacs was > built on a Lisp engine that they had to write first. Cal Dixon wrote > a console mode emacs engine, and James Marsden did some really cool > stuff with View. I think it's doable, and I want a full REBOL > environment but, to me, that means rethinking things, not just doing > what other editors and IDEs do. :-) I'm all for an editor built on rebol, but I *do* use emacs as my editing and development environment - having developed a a major mode for rebol using elisp.
There are many who turn up their nose at emacs - they get distracted by rumors of having to use keystroke "chords" and they roll their eyes at such a rumor and stop there. The truth is - emacs is the most extendable editor/IDE in the freeware world IMHO and that is why I use it. Emacs "in the raw" is very difficult to learn, but many different skins can be built on top of it. In fact emacs *could* be the engine that drives a fully endowed rebol IDE and the user (if he/she so chooses) would *never* have to press 3 keys at once. :-) Having said that, I'm not sure what a beast emacs would be on windows, I'm not sure that asynchronous communication with the binary works on Microsoft platforms and that is one of the things I really find productive. tim -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
