Also it's still available for Archlinux (via AUR) https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/mg/
Community repo is a different thing from AUR
Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
71–80 of 84 posts
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of us only cares about the very basics, and pick emacs (or variations) only because when the choice between editor families that are "always" available it stands between vi/vim and emacs. Microemacs and derivatives like MG or uemacs dates back to the mid 80's, and has been ported to pretty much any platform and OS you can think of (first time I came across one of them was on the Amiga in the late 80's), so they…
In what sense is Emacs (or emacs-likes) "always" available? In most operating systems it is something will have to be installed explicitly, while I haven't seen a unix-like without a vi-clone or nano in a while. Hopefully the lack of emacs-likes can be addressed with something like mg, but so far I don't see it a lot in the wild. I believe that Workbench 2+ for the Amiga came bundled with MicroEMACS, though!
Mac OS X comes with GNU Emacs. Generally installing GNU Emacs is about one of the first things I do on any machine I use.
Other than that I use Emacs variants in Common Lisp for programming. Mostly derivatives of Hemlock, an Emacs editor written in Common Lisp by CMU in the early 80s.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#73Earlier 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).
Back in the day I used ange-ftp for such things. My emacs lived where I did and transferred the files hither and thither.
That said, I do use jove every single day...
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#74FYI: the list of Emacs implementations:
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#75Would be even smaller without all the weird quotes in theo.c "Stop slacking you lazy bum!", "slacker slacker lazy bum bum bum slacker!", "I could search... but I'm a lazy bum ;)", "sshutup sshithead, ssharpsshooting susshi sshplats ssharking assholes.", "Lazy bums slacking on your asses." etc!
i you're lonely, just M-x theo ^M ^M ^M ...
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of us only cares about the very basics, and pick emacs (or variations) only because when the choice between editor families that are "always" available it stands between vi/vim and emacs. Microemacs and derivatives like MG or uemacs dates back to the mid 80's, and has been ported to pretty much any platform and OS you can think of (first time I came across one of them was on the Amiga in the late 80's), so they…
In what sense is Emacs (or emacs-likes) "always" available? In most operating systems it is something will have to be installed explicitly, while I haven't seen a unix-like without a vi-clone or nano in a while. Hopefully the lack of emacs-likes can be addressed with something like mg, but so far I don't see it a lot in the wild. I believe that Workbench 2+ for the Amiga came bundled with MicroEMACS, though!
In the sense that Emacs-alike's, like vi(m) have been ported to pretty much every OS in existence. It's not necessarily installed, but one will be available.
And Nano is only an option for me to escape the horror of vi if I for some reason can't install an emacs-like.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a bit funny, the most unreasonable thing about emacs are its default key bindings... Some of the most frequent operations, like switching between buffers or windows takes 3 key strokes!
Many have opined that that's intended to get people to embrace the built-in malleability and augment the default bindings first thing.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a bit funny, the most unreasonable thing about emacs are its default key bindings... Some of the most frequent operations, like switching between buffers or windows takes 3 key strokes!
Vim doesn't appear to be any better in this regard: switching windows is Ctrl+W Ctrl+W (three strokes) and switching buffers is :bn (five strokes).
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tramp is terrible. Sshfs is better. I don't think it's hard to think of situations where those options aren't as practical as popping open an editor on the command line that you're on.
> Sshfs is better In my experience it highly depends on the editor. With Sublime Text 3 on OS X, each keystroke is delayed by SSHFS' latency. It's a pain. Tramp transfers the files back and forth, always working on a local copy (if I remember correctly). It provides a better experience.
Tramp’s experience gets better when you configure Emacs to keep autosave files somewhere other than alongside their parent in the same directory - unlike the file you’re actually editing, which is indeed only transferred on save or revert, the autosave file is updated very frequently, and this can be painful over a slow link. Keeping autosave files under ~/.emacs.d/auto-save or similar solves that problem; if you can configure Sublime to do something similar, it might improve the experience there as well.
Re: Mg: an Emacs-like editor in 160 kb
#80Earlier 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).
Why would you want to install _any_ editor on a router? If you can ssh into it, you can use Tramp to edit files on it in your full-sized Emacs session, and save what must be scarce storage space on the router besides.