Re: Baby Emacs?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Jul 31, 12:51 pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
>
> I am teaching programming to a few co-workers (research biologists).
> Most of them want some recommendation for a text editor.  Of course,
> I recommend to them Emacs, but I would prefer to recommend a simpler
> version of Emacs, one with fewer features, and also fewer ways to
> get confused.  Is there such a thing?
>
> (A different co-worker suggested nano, but it does not look
> sufficiently Emacs-like to me.)
>
> TIA!

GNU Emacs is definitely superior to the lighter versions, but it also
takes a lot more space. However, it seems portability is getting less
and less for it. In other words, it really depends on what OS you use,
what features you need, etc.

Small Emacs? Try one of the following:  mg2a, MicroEmacs, JASSPA
MicroEmacs (or NanoEmacs for the ultra simplistic), ZILE, JED, or even
Digital Mars' very weird offshoot of MicroEmacs. However, in all
honesty, I would only truly recommend those if you don't need UTF-8
(although JED does sorta have it now). I don't think GNU Emacs will
confuse them very much, and it does do a lot more (including
emulations for other editors if needed)! Also, JOE doesn't really
count but can mimic Emacs a bit in keypresses.