From: Chris Holmes <cholmes AT surfsouth DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: RHIDE AND EMACS...Which one is better?
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:00:55 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA, USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <37AF4F97.60D9@surfsouth.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> <37AEF07E DOT F8CD0F4A AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: r69h109.res.gatech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news-int.gatech.edu 934236670 15305 128.61.69.109 (9 Aug 1999 22:11:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT news DOT gatech DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Aug 1999 22:11:10 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH] wrote:
> 
> 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.

  May I interject that Qedit, (I use the 92 version) is still the best
editor out there?  It does auto-indenting based on file extension, etc.
etc.  And is just sweet.  

  -- signed, a young old fart.

  Chris

-- 
I know that I will never be politically correct,
and I don't give a damn about my lack of etiquette!
-- Meatloaf