🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50...@convex.convex.com> da...@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
>In article <15...@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> kean...@oce.orst.edu (Kean Stump) writes:
>
>>You got MicroGnuEmacs there, son.  No lisp, and not a lot else.
>
>No, I do not bloody have MicroGnuEmacs there, dad.  I have MicroEmacs.
>No Lisp.  Whoopie.  I don't often need to run eliza in my editor.
>
>>jessicar 1776% ll /usr/local/bin/emacs
>>-r-xr-xr-x   1 bin    bin    1860685 Jan 22 12:46 emacs
>
>The point that I was trying to make [which absolutely nobody seems
>to have comprehended], is that you can't speak of the size of "emacs"
>because there is no standard/reference "emacs".  All too many people seem
>to think that "emacs" means "gnu emacs", which (regardless of your preferences)
>is wrong.
>
>"emacs" can be applied to a wide spectrum of editors, including MicroEmacs,
>Epsilon, Jove, Unipress Emacs, GnuEmacs, PDP-10 Emacs, etc.
>
>If you insist on considering any one implementation the "real" one, then it
>would have to be the ITS one.
>
>1.8 meg unstripped -g'd gnu binaries certainly are not a "reference"
>implementation.

But if everyone *were* using that incredibly tiny version you seem to
have, there wouldn't be any problems.  Unfortunately, few people are.
Here at RPI:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 gnu       1171456 Nov  2 23:45 /usr/local/lib/emacs/bin/emacs

Kevin Martin
si...@pawl.rpi.edu