Re: Re[2]: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news software

[Andrej Marjan <amarjan@pobox.com>]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@rpglink.com> writes:

    Steve>     Then why keep bringing it up?  I just find it amusing
    Steve> that the selling point of a unix-like system is that it is
    Steve> modular and flexible so the first thing most people point
    Steve> to is a Microsoft-esque monolith application.  Yeah, that
    Steve> works, great.

I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but I have to ask. As a newcomer
(and devout anti-zealot ;), it seems to me that Emacs is frequently
mischaracterized as just a text editor, just as Mozilla is mislabelled
just a browser. In both cases, they do that, but they're also
(primarily?) application development and deployment platforms. Emacs
seems to be a virtual lisp machine, and it's often used as such. So
why is the argument portayed as vi-the-text-editor
vs. emacs-the-text-editor? 

To me, arguing over vi vs. emacs is like arguing over C the language
and Java the libraries + runtime environment + kitchen sink.

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I'm curious. Am I off-base, is
there a historical reason for this apparent mislabelling?

Thanks.

-- 
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it  |      Andrej Marjan
or who has said it, not even if I have said   |  amarjan@pobox.com
it, unless it agrees with your own reason and |
your own common sense. --buddha               |
----------------------------------------------+-------------------