Subject: Re: A Better WordProcesso From: brandon.s#d#.allbery@lill.frmug.fr.mugnet.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 22:18:00 +0001
ÿ@SUBJECT:Re: A Better WordProcessor Idea
Message-ID: <1993May27.221810.12843@kf8nh.wariat.org>
Newsgroup: comp.os.linux,comp.editors
Organization: Brandon's Linux box and AmPR node, Mentor, OH
In article <jstrick.738529252@access> jstrick@access.digex.net (John Strickler)
writes:
>Then various libraries could be developed to implement the APIs, so noone
>is locked into a single solution.
>
>Any suggestions???
Actually, I think the folks suggesting Lucid Emacs 19 as a foundation have the
right idea --- almost.
Remember, Lucid built their emacs on GNU Emacs 18, adding a lot more features
to it (and, of course, returning the changes to the FSF, where they're being
integrated into GNU Emacs 19 if-and-when).
Emacs would be a good foundation for a word processor --- but we don't need
the kitchen sink. So what's wrong with starting with Lucid 19, or GNU 18, and
*removing* the unwanted features, then building our WP on top of that? If
it's done right, the changes could be merged back into full Emacs for those
people who *do* want the kitchen sink. And it would be much faster than
starting from scratch.
Besides, the concept has been proven already: Borland's Sprint, which would
have done much better in the WP marketplace if it had only come out two years
or so earlier (between WordPerfect and Microsoft Word there wasn't any room
for another word processor) --- and which *still* has a loyal following among
professional writers --- is based on FinalWord, which was itself based on a PC
Emacs. It used Emacs's flexibility to provide multiple user interfaces
including both MS Word and WordPerfect, as well as FinalWord, straight Emacs,
and its own native UI.
++Brandon
-- Brandon S. Allbery kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org bsa@kf8nh.wariat.orgIt's not too late to turn back from the "Gates" of Hell... Linux: the free 32-bit operating system, available NOW. Why waaaaaait for NT?