As an Emacs guy, I really like mg(1). The one missing feature is Unicode support.
Try jmacs (part of JOE). It supports Unicode.
Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
31–40 of 84 posts
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a mostly complete Emacs experience (sans scripting ...), That is mostly not like not Emacs? Or did Zwei and other emacsen had the same key bindings as emacs and gnu's readline?
"sans scripting" The Lisp scripting is the entire point of Emacs. Who cares about the keybindings. I don't really see the point. Can't you just compile emacs? I remember 25 years ago when people thought emacs was too big, and small emacs clones were popular, but in 2015 no one cares, right? Rather than solving these easier useless problems, why doesn't someone solve the harder problem of making a better emacs clone w…
I was thinking the same thing.
I mean, I can run full GNU Emacs on my Raspberry Pi. What's the point of a "micro emacs" missing all the good parts?
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#33Easier just to learn enough of vi to get around. I mean, if I need a more familiar editor, I'm just going. to visit the file remotely via Tramp, and for simple stuff like quick config edits on remote machines, quicker just to use vi or sed or a Perl one-liner.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#34I really like Mg. I tried a bunch of mini-emacsen at one point and Mg was the only one that had a decent set of Emacs key-bindings and didn't have weird gratuitous differences. It's so small that it launches instantaneously, even on tiny, slow computers.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#35> Since it is written completely in C, there is currently _no language in which extensions can be written_; however, keys can be rebound and certain parameters can be changed in startup files. mg seems almost, but not quite, entirely unlike emacs. the thing that makes emacs emacs is not the keybindings or the so-called "modeless" editing (which is a misinterpretation by vim folks, emacs is way more modeful than vim),…
Not when I'm on some tiny VM or computer and want something nicer than Nano that has something remotely close to Emacs keybindings. Then it's the keybindings, not the scriptability. I just want a reasonable editor.
Learn about Tramp, and for tasks complex enough to need a proper editor, you can edit those files in the same Emacs session you use for everything else. That's what I do with my RPi, for example -- it can pipe edits over an ssh session, so anything with an SSH server is eligible. (Revisiting this comment, it occurs to me to add that all my editing on my main machine is done this way. I play a game or two sometimes, so it runs Windows, but I run Emacs in a Linux VM and edit, in full X11-powered, keyboard-unfettered splendor, via transparent SSH authentication with the Windows host.)
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#36> Since it is written completely in C, there is currently _no language in which extensions can be written_; however, keys can be rebound and certain parameters can be changed in startup files. mg seems almost, but not quite, entirely unlike emacs. the thing that makes emacs emacs is not the keybindings or the so-called "modeless" editing (which is a misinterpretation by vim folks, emacs is way more modeful than vim),…
You are missing the point of Mg—it's not to replace Emacs as your development powerhouse, but to give you little binary that acts a lot like Emacs but runs in some tiny vm or embedded device somewhere.
You can also cross compile it (which you cannot do to Emacs).
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sans scripting" The Lisp scripting is the entire point of Emacs. Who cares about the keybindings. I don't really see the point. Can't you just compile emacs? I remember 25 years ago when people thought emacs was too big, and small emacs clones were popular, but in 2015 no one cares, right? Rather than solving these easier useless problems, why doesn't someone solve the harder problem of making a better emacs clone w…
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I can run full GNU Emacs on my Raspberry Pi. What's the point of a "micro emacs" missing all the good parts?
You cannot, however, install full blown Emacs on your Netgear router running OpenWRT. Mg is heaven sent in cases like that. Tiny linux machines still exist (Raspberry Pi is not tiny, resource-wise).
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I can run full GNU Emacs on my Raspberry Pi. What's the point of a "micro emacs" missing all the good parts?
You cannot, however, install full blown Emacs on your Netgear router running OpenWRT. Mg is heaven sent in cases like that. Tiny linux machines still exist (Raspberry Pi is not tiny, resource-wise).
Emacs should be able to run on 16MB machines without X linked.
http://superuser.com/questions/313105/ram-requirements-of-em...
A dozen Emacs "clones" already exist for even lower memory machines:
https://www.gnu.org/software/zile/
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Jove
Anyway, like I mentioned, wouldn't time be better spent creating a high-performance clone rather than a partially functional tiny clone?
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#39[deleted]
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#40> Since it is written completely in C, there is currently _no language in which extensions can be written_; however, keys can be rebound and certain parameters can be changed in startup files. mg seems almost, but not quite, entirely unlike emacs. the thing that makes emacs emacs is not the keybindings or the so-called "modeless" editing (which is a misinterpretation by vim folks, emacs is way more modeful than vim),…
crontab -e
Select an editor: 4. /usr/bin/mg