🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Feb13....@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>I suppose you can tell Unix has arrived when self-proclaimed
>illuminati have taken the "small is beautiful" ethos and reduced
>it to:
>
>	% ls -l /usr/ucb/vi /usr/local/bin/emacs
>	-rwxrwxr-x  1 spike      794624 Nov 13 14:01 /usr/local/bin/emacs
>	-rwxr-xr-x  6 root       196608 Apr 24  1989 /usr/ucb/vi
>
>emacs > vi THEREFORE vi > emacs. QED.
>
>(or whatever it is they're concluding, fill in the verb.)
>
>Gee, I really wish software quality measurement was so simple...I
>guess these are the same folks who go out and buy the (most/least)
>expensive car they can find on the assumption that price==value.

I'm not about to stick my head in the "which is better" trap.  However,
I might suggest that one reason Emacs is *so* large is that it currently
has everything but the kitchen sink.  I mean, REALLY--if you want to run
cellular automata, or write LISP, shouldn't you use an appropriate tool?  As
it is, Emacs can't be called simply a program editor; it eats most small
machines alive and spits out the bits.  The Unix credo of "small is beautiful"
can be overdone, I agree--but I do think the credo "Do one thing, but do it
well" is still a valid point.  Tools should be specialized, but with general
interfaces so they may be piped or otherwise used to build a more complex
environment.  I've heard few argue about the functional capabilities of
Emacs; I simply argue that if one tool that does everything is to be a desired
goal again, let's go right back and resurrect DEC's PIP...