26 Feb
2017
26 Feb
'17
7:32 p.m.
On 26 Feb 2017, at 12:39, Noel Chiappa <jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
I was never happy with the size of EMACS, and it had nothing to do with the
amount of memory resources used. That big a binary implies a very large amount
of source, and the more lines of code, the more places for bugs... And it
makes it harder to understand, for someone working on it (to make a
change/improvement).
I think whether you think Emacs is large or small depends on what you think it is. If you
think it's a text editor it's huge (by the standards of the 1970s, anyway: I
have things which purport to be text editors which have python interpreters in and are
significantly larger than Emacs, *on my phone*). But if you think of it as the userland
of an operating system it's rather small. And many Emacs users do (or did: I used to
but don't so much any more) treat it as the latter.