Skip to main content
Emacs

Return to Answer

replaced http://meta.emacs.stackexchange.com/ with https://emacs.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I agree with Gille's answerGille's answer that Emacs-like keybindings in otherwise completely unrelated software is probably off-topic.

But defining Emacs through Emacs Lisp feels excessive to me, as it wouldn't even include the earlier members of the family like GosEmacs or the '76 implementation (not that anybody would still use those but still...). By that definition, only GNU Emacs and derivatives, like XEmacs and SXEmacs, would be on-topic. While things like EdWin, which is/was able to run Gnus (quite impressive really) would be off-topic

I also feel uncomfortable excluding things like zile, mg (and other MicroEmacs derivatives), qemacs, which all have their place in the generalized Emacs ecosystem. Maybe the discriminating factor should be whether the software's primary goal is to be (some kind of) Emacs, or something else.

I agree with Gille's answer that Emacs-like keybindings in otherwise completely unrelated software is probably off-topic.

But defining Emacs through Emacs Lisp feels excessive to me, as it wouldn't even include the earlier members of the family like GosEmacs or the '76 implementation (not that anybody would still use those but still...). By that definition, only GNU Emacs and derivatives, like XEmacs and SXEmacs, would be on-topic. While things like EdWin, which is/was able to run Gnus (quite impressive really) would be off-topic

I also feel uncomfortable excluding things like zile, mg (and other MicroEmacs derivatives), qemacs, which all have their place in the generalized Emacs ecosystem. Maybe the discriminating factor should be whether the software's primary goal is to be (some kind of) Emacs, or something else.

I agree with Gille's answer that Emacs-like keybindings in otherwise completely unrelated software is probably off-topic.

But defining Emacs through Emacs Lisp feels excessive to me, as it wouldn't even include the earlier members of the family like GosEmacs or the '76 implementation (not that anybody would still use those but still...). By that definition, only GNU Emacs and derivatives, like XEmacs and SXEmacs, would be on-topic. While things like EdWin, which is/was able to run Gnus (quite impressive really) would be off-topic

I also feel uncomfortable excluding things like zile, mg (and other MicroEmacs derivatives), qemacs, which all have their place in the generalized Emacs ecosystem. Maybe the discriminating factor should be whether the software's primary goal is to be (some kind of) Emacs, or something else.

Source Link
Sigma
Sigma
  • 4.5k
  • 10
  • 6

I agree with Gille's answer that Emacs-like keybindings in otherwise completely unrelated software is probably off-topic.

But defining Emacs through Emacs Lisp feels excessive to me, as it wouldn't even include the earlier members of the family like GosEmacs or the '76 implementation (not that anybody would still use those but still...). By that definition, only GNU Emacs and derivatives, like XEmacs and SXEmacs, would be on-topic. While things like EdWin, which is/was able to run Gnus (quite impressive really) would be off-topic

I also feel uncomfortable excluding things like zile, mg (and other MicroEmacs derivatives), qemacs, which all have their place in the generalized Emacs ecosystem. Maybe the discriminating factor should be whether the software's primary goal is to be (some kind of) Emacs, or something else.