6 ms·

Related: Fabrice Bellard[0]'s QEmacs. http://bellard.org/qemacs/ http://bellard.org/qemacs/ - a 160KB executable provides a mostly complete Emacs experience (sa

by beagle3 12y ago

Related: Fabrice Bellard[0]'s QEmacs. http://bellard.org/qemacs/ http://bellard.org/qemacs/ - a 160KB executable provides a mostly complete Emacs experience (sans scripting .. sort of like Mg), but does include syntax coloring, unicode, and watching video inside the editor. A 60KB stripped down version has a feature set comparable to Mg as far as I can tell. [0] of FFMPEG, QEMU, BPG, TCC, JSLINUX and more fame.

PuercoPop 12y ago
> a mostly complete Emacs experience (sans scripting ...), That is mostly not like not Emacs? Or did Zwei and other emacsen had the same key bindings as emacs and gnu's readline?
- melling 12y ago
  "sans scripting" The Lisp scripting is the entire point of Emacs. Who cares about the keybindings. I don't really see the point. Can't you just compile emacs? I remember 25 years ago when people thought emacs was too big, and small emacs clones were popular, but in 2015 no one cares, right? Rather than solving these easier useless problems, why doesn't someone solve the harder problem of making a better emacs clone with a high-performance Emacs Lisp clone. Then Emacs could be used to replace Visual Studio, Xcode, etc. Emacs is an editor construction kit: http://ergoemacs.org/features.html http://ergoemacs.org/features.html https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs
  - jlarocco 12y ago
    I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I can run full GNU Emacs on my Raspberry Pi. What's the point of a "micro emacs" missing all the good parts?
    - __david__ 12y ago
      You cannot, however, install full blown Emacs on your Netgear router running OpenWRT. Mg is heaven sent in cases like that. Tiny linux machines still exist (Raspberry Pi is not tiny, resource-wise).
      - melling 12y ago
        Emacs should be able to run on 16MB machines without X linked. http://superuser.com/questions/313105/ram-requirements-of-emacs http://superuser.com/questions/313105/ram-requirements-of-em... A dozen Emacs "clones" already exist for even lower memory machines: https://www.gnu.org/software/zile/ https://www.gnu.org/software/zile/ http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Jove http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Jove Anyway, like I mentioned, wouldn't time be better spent creating a high-performance clone rather than a partially functional tiny clone?
        __david__ 12y ago
        > Emacs should be able to run on 16MB machines without X linked. My point exactly. These little routers have just a few megs of RAM. Emacs also has ~70MB of (compressed!) elisp files. On a machine with single digit MBs of flash, that's just not workable. And! Even if you do have 70MB of disk and 16MB of RAM available, Emacs isn't necessarily performant. Emacs was dog slow when I had a $5/month prgmr vm, but Mg was blazing fast. > A dozen Emacs "clones" already exist for even lower memory machines Mg isn't new, in case that is what you are thinking (it's at least 10 years old). I tried a bunch of tiny emacs clones a few years ago and Mg was the absolute best. All the rest had weird gratuitous differences or were missing obvious important keys (one of them didn't have M-d). Mg isn't complete (obviously) but it has a surprising number of plain editing keystrokes built in and functions perfectly for editing conf files or crontabs or other small remote tasks. > Anyway, like I mentioned, wouldn't time be better spent creating a high-performance clone rather than a partially functional tiny clone? Whose time? And what do you mean by high-performance clone? Edit: I see, I missed your (way) above comment. To re-answer: Those tasks are orthogonal. Nifty higher level editing junk is certainly a good idea, and people are working on it. I don't see why it would need to be an Emacs clone though, why not just make Emacs itself better? That's the whole point of it in the first place.

by beagle3 12y ago

PuercoPop 12y ago

> a mostly complete Emacs experience (sans scripting ...), That is mostly not like not Emacs? Or did Zwei and other emacsen had the same key bindings as emacs and gnu's readline?

melling 12y ago
"sans scripting" The Lisp scripting is the entire point of Emacs. Who cares about the keybindings. I don't really see the point. Can't you just compile emacs? I remember 25 years ago when people thought emacs was too big, and small emacs clones were popular, but in 2015 no one cares, right? Rather than solving these easier useless problems, why doesn't someone solve the harder problem of making a better emacs clone with a high-performance Emacs Lisp clone. Then Emacs could be used to replace Visual Studio, Xcode, etc. Emacs is an editor construction kit: http://ergoemacs.org/features.html http://ergoemacs.org/features.html https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs
- jlarocco 12y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I can run full GNU Emacs on my Raspberry Pi. What's the point of a "micro emacs" missing all the good parts?
  - __david__ 12y ago
    You cannot, however, install full blown Emacs on your Netgear router running OpenWRT. Mg is heaven sent in cases like that. Tiny linux machines still exist (Raspberry Pi is not tiny, resource-wise).
    - melling 12y ago
      Emacs should be able to run on 16MB machines without X linked. http://superuser.com/questions/313105/ram-requirements-of-emacs http://superuser.com/questions/313105/ram-requirements-of-em... A dozen Emacs "clones" already exist for even lower memory machines: https://www.gnu.org/software/zile/ https://www.gnu.org/software/zile/ http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Jove http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Jove Anyway, like I mentioned, wouldn't time be better spent creating a high-performance clone rather than a partially functional tiny clone?
      - __david__ 12y ago
        > Emacs should be able to run on 16MB machines without X linked. My point exactly. These little routers have just a few megs of RAM. Emacs also has ~70MB of (compressed!) elisp files. On a machine with single digit MBs of flash, that's just not workable. And! Even if you do have 70MB of disk and 16MB of RAM available, Emacs isn't necessarily performant. Emacs was dog slow when I had a $5/month prgmr vm, but Mg was blazing fast. > A dozen Emacs "clones" already exist for even lower memory machines Mg isn't new, in case that is what you are thinking (it's at least 10 years old). I tried a bunch of tiny emacs clones a few years ago and Mg was the absolute best. All the rest had weird gratuitous differences or were missing obvious important keys (one of them didn't have M-d). Mg isn't complete (obviously) but it has a surprising number of plain editing keystrokes built in and functions perfectly for editing conf files or crontabs or other small remote tasks. > Anyway, like I mentioned, wouldn't time be better spent creating a high-performance clone rather than a partially functional tiny clone? Whose time? And what do you mean by high-performance clone? Edit: I see, I missed your (way) above comment. To re-answer: Those tasks are orthogonal. Nifty higher level editing junk is certainly a good idea, and people are working on it. I don't see why it would need to be an Emacs clone though, why not just make Emacs itself better? That's the whole point of it in the first place.