| ▲ | SamuelAdams 7 hours ago |
| For the absolute lightweight, there is vi, eMacs, nano, etc. For a UI I’ve been using VSCode. It is quite quick when you disable all extensions and most settings. |
|
| ▲ | tmtvl 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > absolute lightweight > eMacs I love Emacs, but I don't see how a Lisp platform with a web browser, a Tetris implementation, and 4 terminal emulators (shell, term, ansi-term, eshell) can be considered 'lightweight'. |
| |
| ▲ | deathanatos 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As the old saying goes, "emacs is an operating system lacking only a decent text editor". | | | |
| ▲ | 1bpp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair you can say that of anything with a scripting engine, you could have all that in vim or stripped down emacs | | |
| ▲ | wk_end 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Anything with a scripting engine isn't lightweight compared to (classic) Notepad! (Also, a lot of that stuff comes bundled with Emacs out-of-the-box, further disqualifying it. Having a scripting engine is one thing, but having a scripting engine along with the whole rest of the jet is something else entirely!) |
| |
| ▲ | SamuelAdams 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ha, fair. Lightweight in this context is relative to Notepad or any modern Windows application. | | |
| ▲ | kibibu 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes | | |
| ▲ | CSm1n an hour ago | parent [-] | | Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | JohnFen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| vi and emacs are absolutely not lightweight, let alone "absolutely lightweight". |
| |
| ▲ | jmclnx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If by vi you mean vim, then I agree, real vi is rather lite. As someone famous said, "everything is relative" :) Compared to the new applications that have been coming out, Emacs and vim are a paragon of lightness. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you that vi is lighter than vim. I’ve seen more than a few instances of an OS just aliasing vi to vim. On that note, why are the keybindings for vi on a “modern” Ubuntu different from fedoras? I remember having to mess with ^H in a vimrc or something to that effect to mimic the behavior I was expecting. | | |
| ▲ | cwillu 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like the terminal (not vi) you're using has different defaults; backspace and delete are the two common keys that vary. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm sorry but you cannot use VS Code and lightweight in the same sentence. |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
