From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:28:33 -0500 From: quanstro@quanstro.net To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 In-Reply-To: <44874DD2.8070108@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5fda9bbe-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed Jun 7 17:07:21 CDT 2006, viriketo@gmail.com wrote: acme and previously sam has done me well with all manner of badly formatted and ill-concieved c, c++, perl, pre-f77 fortran, etc. perhaps i don't get it, but there's nothing i've seen in other editors that helped with bad code. bad code is just as bad in colour -- and harder on the eyes. > Corey wrote: > > Will god likewise save us from Rio and Acme? > In fact I use rio in Linux at my job. And by now I don't use Acme > because I have to deal with veryawfulcode (lots of very bad indentations > fruit of many tab/spaces/tab/spaces at code changes, functions more than > 1500 lines long, an unworkable hierarchy of header files...). I agree > that acme is really pleasant for well-written code. As an example, I > like surfing plan9's with it. Also my code looks better if it's written > with acme, but this part is too subjective. :)