Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:03:02PM -0500, Joseph H Allen wrote:
>> What's wrong with the locks?
>Because they're not needed? I understand they there just to benefit emac=
>users, which has its own locking convention?
I've had JOE users ask for them:=A0 They really have nothing to do with e=
except that I implemented them in the same way. The idea is that if you
have lots of windows on the screen, with a bunch JOEs suspended, it is ea=
to get confused and modify the same file twice. With the locks, JOE warn=
you that it happened as soon as you start editing. The emacs way, i.e.,
with the locks as softlinks, is nice compared to using UNIX OS advisory
locks: flock(), fcntl() or lockf(), because it's more portable.
JED implements the locks the same way, too. VIM doesn't have locks yet. =
all the common editors use the same locks, a bunch of people could safely
edit files in the same directory.
>I *loathe* emacs. Other people love it - and would never look at joe. Th=
>overlap, that is people who use both emacs and joe, is probably small; s=
>think they should have to explicitly enable emacs-locking if they want i=
Well it's weird:=A0I can't stand the feel of emacs, and it's difficult to=
the entire editor (there's no single manual to read, instead you are forc=
to learn it incrementally). Plus I don't want to read news in my editor =
Also many things are clunky, like the highlighter and the hex editor.
On the other hand, a lot of things are nice. They've thought a lot of
things through properly, I envy EDIFF (wish it was stand alone tool), and
LISP is very powerful (if difficult to type).