From: "Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" <cp1v45 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: RHIDE AND EMACS...Which one is better?
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 11:15:12 -0400
Organization: Nortel Networks
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <37AEF07E.F8CD0F4A@americasm01.nt.com>
References: <19990808174528 DOT 20888 DOT 00009160 AT ng-fe1 DOT aol DOT com> <934174532 DOT 375811 AT kyle DOT inet DOT net DOT nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bmerhc00.ca.nortel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

David Mitchell wrote:

> Orvbongat wrote in message <19990808174528 DOT 20888 DOT 00009160 AT ng-fe1 DOT aol DOT com>...
> >Which is one is a better IDE...Rhide or EMACS?
> A matter of opinion really.  I prefer RHIDE, because it has that familiar
> DOS feel, but I'm sure a UNIX boffin would be scoffing at this and would be
> able to name a thousand reasons which make emacs better.

    Well, as I have used both extensively, I would say that Emacs is better for
editing code, if only for it's smart indention (which is configurable for your
indention style).  But RHIDE is much easier to setup/use [especially for users
of Borland C++ v3.1].  And the debugging capabilities in RHIDE just kick-ass.

--
     -Rolf Campbell (39)3-6318