Re: off topic alert: XEmacs vs Emacs?

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes:

> On the other hand, I see that XEmacs behaves in, err, /unexpected/
> ways.  Two anecdotical examples: loading del-bs.el (or similar) does
> what one expect, *except* in Lisp Interaction mode.  Hm.  rcp.el
> doesn't work together with EFS because EFS expects to be the only
> remote-file handling package used (well, the only one which uses
> file names beginning with "/foo:").
> 
> I get a vague feeling that the many packages included with XEmacs
> might not be so well thought-out and thoroughly-tested.

Have you considered actually reporting a bug?  I don't know what
"packages included with XEmacs" means to you, so I can't comment if
they are "so well thought-out and thoroughly-tested".  I do know that
the XEmacs development process is just as thorough as the FSF one.

It often happens that the FSF code is debugged before it's included in
XEmacs, or that it's simply not included because of its inferior
quality.  The reverse also happens -- bad code gets introduced to
XEmacs and it needs fixing.  But that's not an inherent fault of
XEmacs.

If you wish to try XEmacs *seriously*, try it.  If you find a bug,
report it or, better yet, try to fix it.  You have the knowledge.

> If you feel this discussion is inappropriate in this group, feel
> free to say so and I'll go elsewhere.

So.