[tech-spec] Re: R editor
- From: "Daniel Flam" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tech-spec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:42:09 -0400
Have i also forgotten to recommend WinCVS?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Eddelbuettel" <edd@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tech-spec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:13 PM
Subject: [tech-spec] Re: R editor
> John,
>
> Let me know if I get to obnoxious but I can't resists pointing out that
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:19:07AM -0700, BBands wrote:
> > I was hoping for a cross-platform solution. In my research I have
noticed
>
> a) XEmacs fits that bill.
>
> > that a couple of the potential solutions also provide Python editing
> > facilities and as Python is my modeling language of choice I am thinking
of
> > heading in that direction.
>
> b) XEmacs fits that bill
>
> > Dirk suggests that I reconsider joining the church of emacs and I reply
that
> > membership is effectively limited to full-time coders due to the
complexity
>
> c) XEmacs fits that bill
>
> [ Case in point is my wife who uses XEmacs essentially only as an editor
for
> State (covered by ESS, just as R is) and LaTeX (covered by the AucTeX
mode).
> She doesn't use more than two or three keyboard shortcuts, and otherwise
> just operates using the mouse and menus. XEmasc does work
'incrementally',
> you do not do learn "all" it once. I guess I only use 10% of what I
could
> use. ]
>
> > of the program and the steepness of the learning curve.
> >
> > Finally, CVS support would be another neat feature of the right package.
>
> d) XEmacs fits that bill (Tools->VC-> menu entries)
>
> I'll try to stay off the soap box now as I also find the quasi-religeous
> insistance painful, but as I said, this one I do believe in, and see all
the
> relevant facts support it.
>
> Happy Columbus & Canuck Thanksgiving day,
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others.
> -- Groucho Marx
>
>
Other related posts:
