On 10 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mule in Emacs in not the same as the one in XEmacs, so a mule-free > version might not be relevant. A part from BIDI support what is different, I remembered when Mule started (officially) xemacs was far less buggy then emacs. > >> 3. Mail: the excellent vm package worked without problems in both >> emacs version till version 19.34, (* years ago). Now it works more >> or less with the emacs version (the problem is the mule >> implementation of emacs) but still attached graphics are not as >> nicely displayed if at all as they are in xemacs. > > I guess you mean displaying graphic files? right > > However, following both XEmacs and Emacs development lists, it seems > to me that XEmacs is not doing much progress these days, especially > because of a lack of manpower. On the contrary, the GNU Emacs teem well the 21.5.x seems to be sort of buggy, but right manpower is limited in Xemacs. > is very productive and Emacs is not only catching up (multi tty) but > also brings nice new features like bidirectional editing, nifty gtk2 > widgets, configurable fringes, and so. That is true, the lack of BIDI support is especially annoying, however some years ago there was a conference about this issue and people working in BIDI were not willing to do anything for Xemacs. > I forget to add one important thing of course, the Xemacs package system which allows on the fly actualization. Emacs has nothing similar. > That said, both are nice tools. Right, both have their strong sides and their weak points, but I insist, removing Xemacs, would harm the Debian project. But this was not your point of course. Uwe > > -- J閞鬽e Marant
