Let's begin SchemeOS

Chris Bitmead chrisb@Ans.Com.Au
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 04:27:42 +0000

Christian Lynbech on satellite wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Bitmead <chrisb@ans.com.au> writes:
> Chris> Unlike others, I'm not overly concerned about getting emacs
> Chris> working. The reason is that current implementations of Emacs,
> Chris> are very much devoted to the UNIX view of the universe. That
> Chris> is, everything is a text file, and everything is stored in a
> Chris> UNIX file system.
> This, I guess, depends on your point of view (fanatism warning: I
> *love* emacs). While emacs does have a number of filesystem oriented
> functions, these a by no means essential.

Well yes. I imagine that SchemeOS would end up with something
fairly Emacs like, if not Emacs itself. Whatever editors people
like enough, they will take the time to port.

> Chris> In any case, text files will be much less important in Scheme
> Chris> OS, and therefore Emacs will be quite a lot less important too,
> Chris> since it is primarily a text editing tool.
> Well, text remains an important part of users life, no matter how it
> is stored, and it would takes something of a hack to beat emacs at
> editing text.

That's fine. I use emacs myself. But you might be surprised how
much text editing can be elimitated.
> Chris> Until SchemeOS gets it's own text editor, we can use a UNIX
> Chris> editor
> Then why not simply use UNIX emacs?

Sure, use whatever you like.
> Chris> I've never used a Structure editor, so I don't know how good
> Chris> they can be
> I have somewhere some references to a couple of articles written by
> Richard Stallmann and (I think) Erik Sandewall in ACM Computing
> Surveys (I think) discussing the pros and cons of structure editors. I
> can try to dig them up if you like.

Yeah, that might be interesting.

Chris Bitmead