[HN Gopher] Emacs Timeline
___________________________________________________________________
Emacs Timeline
Author : susam
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-07-31 10:56 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (emacs.brause.cc)
(TXT) w3m dump (emacs.brause.cc)
| mcbuilder wrote:
| Emacs first public release is as old as I am. It seems that
| development on GNU Emacs is regaining momentum. I'm glad to be
| using an editor that's probably going to be around for the rest
| of my life time.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| GNU Emacs development does indeed seem to have picked up the
| pace in the last 5-10 years. And the package archives and
| development community outside of people working on the core
| editor seems super vibrant. See, eg, magit,
| helm/ivy/vertico/..., spacemacs/doom, paredit, eglot, ...
| sys_64738 wrote:
| No mention of derivatives like Micro Emacs for the Amiga circa.
| 1985.
| juice_bus wrote:
| Has anyone here 'adapted' to Emacs after starting out with Visual
| Studio / Code / etc? I have tried multiple times over the years
| to give it a shot but it hasn't stuck.
| lotw_dot_site wrote:
| Isn't the reason why people gravitate to standard utilities
| such as emacs and vim largely _because_ they simply can 't cope
| with all of the shiny graphical bloat while they are trying to
| wrack their brains coming up with some new kind of thing or
| another? I use vim, and I've spent countless hours of my life
| trying to write a new kind of vim with it. (See:
| https://lotw.site/shell, then enter "import fs && vim" at the
| prompt.)
| umanwizard wrote:
| Modern GNU Emacs isn't really comparable to vim in this
| respect, since people use it with tons of bells and whistles.
| Emacs is probably better described as a "framework for
| building custom IDEs" than as a "text editor". Yes, vim
| plugins exist but my impression is that using stock vim with
| no plugins and only a bit of configuration is much more
| mainstream than doing a similar thing with emacs.
|
| I'm sure people are out there who just use stock emacs, but
| I'm not sure why you would do so instead of using something
| simple like nano.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I don't mind a good IDE. But that only "works" well, as long
| as you are working in one single language, day in and out.
| There have been such times in my life and I was happy with
| the corresponding IDE (unless it itself was just crap :p).
| But if you are not so focussed, jumping between languages
| quicker, or just if you don't have a good IDE at hand for
| your language, Emacs is your friend :).
| medstrom wrote:
| These days there is the similarly general-purpose VSCode
| and competitors, so this particular angle holds no water.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Sorry, first you should consider your language. "Holds no
| water" is way to strong, especially as it is absolutely
| wrong. VSCode is nice but a far cry from the abilities of
| Emacs. And while it does somewhat support a lot of
| languages, setting it up for a new language is way more
| work implementing a complex protocol compared to Emacs.
|
| Maybe it has become better, but for a while I looked into
| it as it was popular for Go editing. Unfortunately, there
| is way to much predetermined flow built in, so Emacs
| makes it the way better Go editor for me. Back then,
| there was even no key binding for compiling the current
| file.
|
| And as I said, the language coverage is much worse than
| Emacs, as it is its hackability.
| comfypotato wrote:
| To set the tone of my reply: I'm an every-day-all-day
| Emacs user. I greatly enjoy configuring my Emacs. Your
| point about "hackability" is spot on. That being said, I
| think the language "holds no water" is reasonable here.
| It sounds like you haven't used VSCode in a while. (As a
| lightweight IDE) it has completely seamless integration
| with every popular language.
| DMell wrote:
| I have tried multiple times but always run into a wall feeling
| as if my learning is hindered by also having to learn my tools.
|
| Im just so comfortable in a JetBrains IDE.
| outworlder wrote:
| I 'adapted' before VSCode was a thing (we had Sublime,
| Textmate, etc).
|
| The main issue for most people is that the standard install is
| pretty barebones in terms of ergonomic enhancements. Sure, the
| default Emacs install has _way_ more functionality than a
| VSCode install full of plugins. But it won't have simple things
| like fuzzy search for commands, buffers, etc.
|
| I'd suggest looking into Spacemacs, or Doom Emacs if you are
| comfortable with VI. Those will have sane defaults and cut down
| on the amount of script snippets you have to add considerably.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Yeah, I came to it late -- actually, I came to it _after_ my
| jobs stopped being "sling code all day."
|
| What brought me to it was Orgmode. I'd TRIED to use emacs
| before, 20 years ago, in my LAMP-stack days, but it was too
| easy to use more modern editors (for me, on a Mac, this was a
| mix of BBEdit and TextMate). The learning curve in emacs is
| intense.
|
| Then years later, I got sick of the existing to-do software I
| was using. I changed jobs into a MUCH busier one, and the David
| Allen / GTD tools like Omnifocus just weren't working for me. I
| realized what I really really needed was the ability to take
| notes and intersperse to-do items in the text, and then have
| some tool that would look at my notes files and show me a
| dynamic view of the to-dos coming up (or overdue).
|
| I mentioned this desire to a friend, and he said, in so many
| words, "boy do I have some good news for you, because that
| exactly describes orgmode."
|
| In adopting orgmode, I find myself using emacs for other tasks,
| too, including whatever generic coding I end up doing now where
| it's reasonable to do so (ie, not vba and not interacting with
| MS SQL Server).
| lkfsfldkjfslk wrote:
| I think people who stick with it tend to be people who see it
| as a hobby. If you're just looking to get stuff done VS Code or
| JetBrains will get you up and running way faster than Emacs,
| with similar productivity. I stick with Emacs because it's so
| configurable it can be exactly the way I want it, which I
| haven't found in other editors.
| sedeki wrote:
| Sure Emacs is endlessly configurable. But it is too clunky
| for my taste.
|
| I realize this is sort of like complaining about trivial code
| style preferences in a code review, rather than looking at
| what the code at hand is actually doing.
|
| But Emacs just feels too... Old-school. Not in a cool way,
| but rather in a boring way.
|
| I wish I "figured out" Emacs though.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Growing up with Windows GUI, I too found many concepts in
| Emacs are just too different and "old-school".
|
| I wonder if there is an opportunity for a modern, open-
| source, extendable, programmable text editing environment
| that uses CUA, Tabs instead of Buffers, and Javascript
| instead of LISP. Or if it's already too late because VS
| Code has already taken over the modern, open-source, and
| extendable parts already?
| kagevf wrote:
| Using different tools for different types of work / programming
| is an option.
|
| I started using emacs almost 3 years ago for org mode; a few
| months later I started programming in Common Lisp. Emacs works
| very well for those 2 use cases, and I feel like I've adapted
| well-enough. I still use Visual Studio for C#, and everything
| else is either vim or vim key-bindings.
| jsyolo wrote:
| Emacs with evil mode?
| kqr wrote:
| I have, but it took a very long time. For the most common
| operations, you can get Emacs to be as convenient as whatever
| you're coming from, but it takes quite a bit of work and
| learning if you're new to it. When I transitioned, LSP wasn't a
| thing either so it had to be configured fresh for every
| language, pretty much.
|
| What makes it worth it for me is that
|
| (a) Once configured properly, I have a uniform interface to
| files, regardless of what sort of files they are. This save me
| time and mental effort.
|
| (b) Emacs is extremely hackable in ways you won't understand
| for the first year or two, at least. If there's something about
| its behaviour you don't like, you can run a couple of commands
| and be taken to the relevant parts of the editor (Lisp) source
| code. Then you can replace that code (or better, write new code
| that hooks into it dynamically) with whatever you would like
| instead.
|
| The latter sounds like a nutty thing to desire, and it's very
| hard to appreciate it without having used it for a while.
| acmdas wrote:
| Agree wholeheartedly with your (a) and (b), and would add:
|
| (c) Emacs won't disappear after a few years (where "few" can
| mean decades if your career lasts that long - mine ran from
| 1967 to 2011 and I still use emacs daily) the way virtually
| every (or maybe every) "more intuitive" editor/environment
| will, given time. Your investment in learning it will really
| pay off.
| scombridae wrote:
| _Emacs won 't disappear... the way every "more intuitive"
| editor will_
|
| Adoption rates of intuitive IDEA and Visual Studio, while
| not quite as old, have long pushed Emacs into niche
| territory. Emacs hasn't disappeared only in the sense any
| venerable UNIX utility hasn't.
| p4bl0 wrote:
| I switched from TextMate to Emacs 15 years ago. Nowadays I'm
| slowly switching to Kate :).
| mplanchard wrote:
| Yes, I switched over after using vim for a few years, then
| JetBrains, then VSCode. Being already familiar with vim
| keybindings, doom emacs provided a nice on-ramp, much simpler
| than spacemacs IMO, which I tried a year or two earlier.
|
| For me the key was starting small. Initially I just used emacs
| for org-mode, then for magit, and then finally for programming.
| Now I have a hard time imagining using something else.
| fmakunbound wrote:
| Yeah I adopted it after exploring other languages after
| learning to program in Turbo Pascal 5. Bit later I started
| using it for mail and news (Gnus) and other things.
|
| It's a life time tool that grows with you.
| hvis wrote:
| I've worked with Visual Studio, and Eclipse, and NetBeans for a
| few years.
|
| Then tried Emacs while learning Clojure, and after a few to and
| fro, stuck with it.
|
| This was before Visual Studio Code (or Atom) became a thing,
| though.
| bitwize wrote:
| Kind of, almost by force. I was trying out Linux back in 1995,
| coming from Windows. Going from Windows to Linux back then was
| a bit like switching from a brand new economy sedan to one of
| those cars built out of scrap by Immortan Joe and his War Boys.
| Everything was so janky and cobbled together, but extremely
| powerful, it seemed, compared to what you left behind. It would
| be close to another year before some German Amigaheads put
| together the first Linux desktop worth taking seriously -- KDE.
|
| So when I programmed on Windows, I used an IDE -- typically
| Borland C++ or Microsoft Visual C++. When I wanted to program
| for Linux -- ???
|
| There was no equivalent. I had to use my old-school Unix skills
| and write the code in a text editor, then use the compiler and
| make to put it all together in an executable. I started with --
| pico, was it? But a friend told me Emacs was really great and
| _the_ editor to use if you 're a programmer. I'd heard the name
| Emacs from Micro Emacs on the Amiga, but apparently this was
| big boy Emacs.
|
| It came with Slackware, so I fired it up. And holy crap. It
| seemed unspeakably powerful and live-codable. I would only get
| a sense for its true power over years of working with it -- to
| code, to write HTML pages and stories. It had a web browser,
| email client, and IRC client. It had _games_! All written in
| Emacs Lisp. Blew my damn mind at the time.
|
| The skill ceiling for Emacs is tremendously high, it's not
| something you will pick up easily. But for me it was well worth
| learning. I won't call myself proficient in it, but I can do
| things with it and shape it to my exact needs in ways Visual
| Studio (Code) can't match, live, as I use it. To me it's worth
| its weight in gold.
| afry1 wrote:
| I have indeed! This is my first year of using Emacs. Previously
| I was using VS Code, and before that Atom, and before that
| Sublime.
|
| Two things which have contributed to my success: - The System
| Crafters YT channel. David has an amazing tutorial series where
| you build a config file from scratch. I followed along, and it
| both gave me a very functional Emacs config and taught me
| enough about Emacs to get out of trouble when I goof up:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/SystemCrafters - Not being afraid to
| go back to other editors/IDEs for a while, or even rely on
| other editors for some tasks. Learning Emacs is tough enough as
| it is, but when you're a working programmer and you're on the
| clock for getting something done, it's extra tough to tolerate
| the slowdown from all those 1000 little things that you haven't
| gotten comfortable with, or features which were present in your
| previous editor but aren't yet present in your Emacs config. In
| past lives I would have just rage-quit and given up on Emacs,
| but I tried to be gentle with myself this time and take breaks
| from Emacs when I need to, and it has been a winning strategy.
|
| Never going back.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I have. I had used various IDEs, from Turbo Pascal over Borland
| C++ and Visuaol Basic, the last being jBuilder. When Borland
| refused to give me an upgrade deal to the next version after I
| had bought jBuilder 1.0, I had enough anger to really dig into
| emacs and to learn to use it and the back then really great JDE
| package for Java development. Since then I have mostly stuck to
| Emacs for my coding. Sometimes I still would use an IDE, for
| Java coding you really can't avoid intelliJ :), but most of the
| time it is just Emacs.
|
| Once you have the keybindings in your brain, you will struggle
| with other editors. And the main advantage of Emacs for me is:
| I can edit really everything editable, and will find a nice
| environment. Most IDEs are limited one or few languages and
| outside of that, you are out of luck.
|
| Having support for everything I edit and seamlessly between
| languages, many of which don't have "IDEs", ist hard to beat. I
| avoid Java these days, but take SLIME as a really great Common
| Lisp IDE, or from quite early on good Go support, and many
| more. And in all of the modes, C-c C-c will either compile the
| file or evaluate the function under the cursor. And I can edit
| all those languages not only with the same tool, but within the
| same session. In one Emacs, you can edit them all side-by-side.
| truncate wrote:
| I learned programming in various IDEs. Visual C++ 6,
| Code::Blocks etc ... Moved to Vim somehow when learning Linux,
| and eventually Emacs because I was programming a lot in Racket
| and it was just nicer there. This all predates Visual Studio
| Code.
|
| The thing is you won't feel any benefit of using Vim/Emacs over
| Visual Studio Code unless you put LOT OF TIME configuring it. I
| didn't use any of the configuration framework like Spacemacs,
| and built my config over the years (adapted bunch of stuff from
| Centaur Emacs as it was super simple to copy things from
| there). But once you get it, it almost feels like an extension
| of you which I never feel on the other IDEs. And now with LSP
| clients on Emacs, bunch of basic things for programmning almost
| work out of box, it has never been easier.
|
| I've a feeling you can probably get there by configuring Visual
| Studio Code too, but it does feel as inviting to be hacked as
| say Emacs.
| p4bl0 wrote:
| > unless you put LOT OF TIME configuring it
|
| I don't think this is true. What is true is that by putting a
| lot of time into fine tuning your own Emacs you learn to
| master Emacs.
|
| But then, once you master it, you can use it almost vanilla,
| and still be as efficient and productive.
|
| I've spent years customizing my init.el file and even wrote
| minor and major modes and a few custom packages. At some
| point my Emacs was loading almost a thousand lines of
| personal elisp code.
|
| Then I decided to try to slim down my config and started
| fresh. I used M-x customize for a few things (I did
| everything manually before) and have a small -- maybe 20
| lines? -- init.el file and that's it.
|
| It still rocks and I'm still very proficient with it.
|
| Now I'm trying to go further and switching to Kate. It's a
| fun ride but a bit hard at time and has lead be to become a
| small contributor to the project to improve both Kate and the
| underlying KTextEditor :). I'm kind of rediscovering the fun
| I had configuring my Emacs 15 years back ^^.
| truncate wrote:
| Isn't fine tuning ~= spending time configuring? How much
| configuration and fine tuning you need is subjective. I
| personally don't like using it vanilla, particularly if I'm
| working on a big codebase.
|
| I love all those fancy modes and they are all part of my
| workflow -- ivy, ivy-ripgrep , magit, lsp (for
| autocompletion, code navigation), diff-highlight,
| perspective, swiper, flycheck, projectile etc etc. I like
| to figure out keybindings, that work for me over long term.
| You also don't want to make it feel bloated, overwhelming,
| and slow meanwhile. Without all these, it is just good for
| doing quick edits.
|
| In the end I want to be productive with the codebases I
| work with. There was a time, pre-LSP and native-comp when
| Emacs was getting super slow, and I was ready to jump ship
| to VSCode, plainly because I wasn't feeling
| productive/efficient with Emacs anymore.
|
| Edit: to give further context. When you install LSP, it may
| or may not be as per your taste. For me, I don't like bunch
| of UI stuff it adds like breadcrumbs, doc popups, sidebars.
| So you'd spend sometime finding the right config to
| disable. Now multiply this with bunch of other packages you
| like, figuring out right set of keybindings that are
| intuitive and easy, it all takes a bit of time IMO.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I have to disagree with this a bit. I try to keep my emacs
| file pretty minimal, like 20 lines of customizations like
| fonts and a few flags, the rest mostly just requiring
| additional packages and a very few custom functions.
| gamekathu wrote:
| Yes, it is my second year running with Emacs after ditching
| VSCode. While I miss the remote editing capability of VSCode,
| working on a shared HPC cluster made me finally use Emacs.
| Nowadays, I have shifted most of my workflows in Emacs,
| especially using Org mode, and I believe it should stick for
| the next several years.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Emacs has TRAMP for remote editing, although I'm not sure how
| that compares to VSCode's capability.
| karthink wrote:
| > I'm not sure how that compares to VSCode's capability.
|
| Not favorably. Perhaps there's a magic combination of SSH
| and Tramp settings that can make the experience lag free,
| but I can't find it. VSCode's remote editing was setup-free
| and close to seamless when I tried it.
|
| Tramp has support for many, many more remote protocols
| though.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I suspect good ssh support is just so much more necessary
| for vscode than it was for Emacs when tramp was
| developed. I do think tramp was also full of generality
| towards things that are very uncommon these days (various
| different protocols, ssh workarounds, baud rates, ...)
| hibbelig wrote:
| How does Tramp in Emacs compare to VSCode remote editing?
| [deleted]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Yes. I started programming in ~ca 2010 when I went to uni and
| we mostly programmed in Java with Netbeans, so using Emacs
| wasn't exactly natural for me. The worst thing is the
| keybindings which don't conform remotely to anything modern.
|
| I think the biggest issue is that people are simply intimidated
| by learning Emacs from the bottom up _themselves_. It has an
| incredibly extensive tutorial baked in. It 's almost completely
| self-referential which distinguishes it from most stuff people
| engage with today. And that's the crucial part I think because
| if you start copying other people's configs around or just ask
| stackoverflow I think you're not going to have a good time.
| Emacs for me was the first complex thing where I basically
| could have turned the internet off and just look at it myself.
|
| I honestly credit Emacs with no less than curing me of a weird
| learned helplessness I got from my awful education that threw
| tools at me where I had no hope of understanding what they do.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Interesting perspective. What were you doing during the
| initial semi-helpless "why-does-this-hurt-so-much" phase of
| your emacs journey?
|
| I find that people who take a slower long-term approach tend
| to be the ones that have a good experience. The moment
| someone really "needs" to get something done with emacs is
| usually when they shelve it for something more intuitive or
| more powerful out of the box.
| WoodenChair wrote:
| I only tried once about 15 years ago (from GUI IDEs/editors)
| and it didn't appeal to me. Now with GitHub Copilot and the
| like I think the use of command-line editors will further
| diminish for generalized programming tasks, although they will
| always have a place in system administration.
| mplanchard wrote:
| Realistically, there's not much emacs can't do, including
| integrating with copilot[1]. I think it's niche isn't system
| administration, but people who have the time, energy, and
| interest to really invest in their tools. Its configurability
| is second to none, and it's not going anywhere. Emacs will
| still be around long after vscode is forgotten, and it's nice
| to know that the time I spend learning my editor won't go to
| waste when some big corp decides to up and leave, or the
| programming zeitgeist moves on to the shiny new thing.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/zerolfx/copilot.el
| scombridae wrote:
| _Emacs will still be around long after vscode is forgotten_
|
| Neither antecedent (vscode dies) nor consequent (emacs
| survives) is at all assured.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Nothing lasts forever, but Emacs has enough momentum
| behind it that I'd be shocked if it dies within our
| lifetime (assuming there's no general collapse of
| technological civilization, of course). Even if the FSF
| were to become defunct, enough people care about Emacs
| and are involved with it that somebody will continue
| developing it.
|
| VSCode's development is so totally dominated by one
| company that it's hard to imagine it continuing to go
| strong if they decided to discontinue it (Cf. the fate of
| Atom).
| mplanchard wrote:
| True! I guess there's only one way to find out.
| acmdas wrote:
| History rather suggests that both antecedents will occur,
| assured or not. MS isn't known for keeping tools around
| for decades.
| samatman wrote:
| Visual C++ turns 30 next February.
|
| So maybe there's an exception for tools with Visual in
| the name.
|
| And all of Office.
| rayiner wrote:
| I started with visual studio in the late 1990s. Didn't try
| Emacs until 2005 when I started using SLIME for Common Lisp.
| Committed myself to doing some projects in Common Lisp, and
| insofar as SLIME is head and shoulders better than anything
| else for that, it forced me to learn the environment.
|
| After leaving programming entirely for a decade I can back to
| Emacs recently when I discovered pdf-tools and Org mode. Took
| only a bit of time to get reacclimatize this time. It's all
| muscle memory. You just have to force yourself to do real work
| with it so you exercise the muscles.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| I also bounced off multiple times but have now been happily
| using it for 2 years. I really reccomend trying Doom Emacs and
| learning the default VIM modal editing. Doom comes with sane
| defaults and very simple configuration presets for every
| language out of the box. Learning modal editing pays off
| quickly.
|
| https://github.com/doomemacs/doomemacs
| [deleted]
| dannyobrien wrote:
| To fail to answer your question, I've been a vim (then neovim)
| user for twenty years or so, and moved to emacs in the last
| couple of years.(initially because of a desire to have a
| searchable/configurable email client, then I stayed because of
| org-mode.).
|
| I did not move from Code -- but I had an interesting
| interaction with my son recently, who is a Code user. I was
| showing him my org-agenda set up. He noted that it was weird to
| organize your life in the app you use to edit code. I do see
| his point!
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > He noted that it was weird to organize your life in the app
| you use to edit code. I do see his point!
|
| Only if you think of it as an "app", which often carries a
| connotation of singular or narrowly constrained purpose. I
| open an app to get directions, I open an app to see my email,
| I open an app to send a message, I open an app to check my
| grocery list.
|
| Emacs isn't an _app_ , it's a system. Is it also weird that
| we use the same systems (Linux, Windows, macOS) to code and
| organize our lives and to host a variety of limited purpose
| apps?
| eftychis wrote:
| I like to see this as, you write code in/via the tool you
| trust to organize your life.
|
| But I do like your son's is a good perspective to think upon
| -- and all claims/questions deducing from it.
| jcpst wrote:
| Mhm, evil and org-mode brought me to emacs. I generate
| documentation, presentations, embed little scripts to
| transform org-tables, and use ledger-mode. I don't even use
| it for coding projects anymore.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I used to use visual studio and I think I maybe also learned
| some very basic vim (arrow keys, i, dd, p, :wq) to do some
| remote sysadmin type things. I wanted to learn Common Lisp
| which, at the time, meant having to learn Emacs too. And then I
| was more interested in things outside of windows and Emacs
| stuck. (Also the calculator in it is amazing).
|
| Funnily, I also work for a company where many people use Emacs
| (it was the only editor with good support for our tools for a
| long time - you can even order lunch from it - new hires were
| encouraged to use it, even non-software engineers when they
| needed to interact with the Linux side of things) which I think
| is pretty uncommon. There was definitely a time 10 years or so
| ago when vim seemed to have massive popularity online and
| everything else seemed to fly under the radar.
| intrasight wrote:
| I started with Gosmacs back in 1984 at CMU. Time does fly.
| caboteria wrote:
| I'm curious whether you are still an emacs user. I'm a relative
| emacs noob, having started using it around the turn of the
| century, and I can't imagine how much time I would have wasted
| learning the editor of the moment over and over.
| dilap wrote:
| Otoh, how much time have you wasted customizing your editor?
| I know it's a lot for me! :-)
|
| It's sort of a palette cleanser. "Ehhh, I don't feel like
| working what I'm supposed to be working on, I think there's
| this urgent emacs feature I should figure out..."
| convolvatron wrote:
| I started with zmacs in '87. it seemed so old and such an
| established part of the canon even then - I can hardly believe
| it was just a baby, and that I'm still using it as a daily
| driver 35 years later.
| ordu wrote:
| Nice. But `content-type: text/plain` makes html to be shown as a
| text. Not a big difference, because mostly it is a one big `pre`,
| but nevertheless.
| dang wrote:
| We've changed the URL from
| https://depp.brause.cc/brause.cc/emacs/timeline.html and it
| seems to be working now.
| gumby wrote:
| I think the first entry should include Eugene Cicarelli's TECO
| init file which was the base of the others.
|
| The 0th entry should be the addition of "^R MODE" to TECO, which
| was the interactive display editing mode for what was previously
| just a text mode editor like Multics qed or its descendant,
| Unix's ed. I believe ^R mode (an MIT extension) was around '75.
|
| But this is second hand as I was quite late to the party, not
| encountering Emacs until 1978.
| ajross wrote:
| Agreed. Does anyone know if there are sources retained anywhere
| for any of that stuff?
|
| IIRC I went digging around the simh ITS packages (hard to do
| since it's an alien filesystem image, not exactly a consumable
| tarball) and couldn't find it.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Although updated in GNU Emacs side, SXEmacs shows recent version
| to be 22.1.16 (06-may-16) whereas 22.1.17 (02-sep-20) has been
| released.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-03 23:00 UTC)