As seen from lists.joe-general, on
Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:58:20 +0100, Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:24:02AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Sorry, I used to like joe, but my version (which started as
>> joe 2.8 plus "jupprc") appears to stay forked off joe 3.1
>> and will not get updated with this bloat.
>FWIW, I'd be happy to see joe 2.8 maintained too.
>For me, joe's main benefits are:
>1. Ease of use (e.g. when you type "x", an "x" appears on the screen :-)
>2. Quick to learn; a handful of keystrokes are all you need for decent
>3. Very fast
>4. Very small
>5. Very quick to compile
>There is a risk that benefits 3-5 will start to be lost with bloat.
>Personally, I can live without multi-coloured syntax highlighting and the
>like, especially since it often gets it wrong anyway (e.g. quotes inside
Fortunately, control of syntax highlighting is available in the .jsf
files, which makes it possible to fix/modify/enhance highlighting
without hacking the source code.
For me, the enhanced usability provided by most of the new features
makes the extra size a small price to pay. But I can understand the
desire that others might have to leave behind the features that they
find to be only marginally useful. Because I speak only English, I know
that I would never use the internationalization features currently
under development. These features look to be adding a new layer of
complexity that I certainly don't want.
Joe has grown sufficiently large in size that it is time to consider
making features selectable with compile-time options. When people start
talking about reverting to earlier versions to eliminate unwanted
features (which also means sacrificing recent bug fixes), or raiding
cvs to assemble a customized version (great if you know how to do that,
but what about the rest of us who really do need that autoconf
configure script?), I think that it really becomes a "must." Clearly,
a great deal of effort has gone into making joe configurable. Perhaps
compilation needs to be more configurable, as well.