What type of web-pages are their

Did you go to the Emacs site?

 

As I said below my example snippet:

The dp editor loses nearly all formatting when pasting preformatted code. Fortunately this is the only pos I have that issue in. It is a pita and is an opportunity for error.

g

 

The what now? With REAL Opera being dead, what browser actually uses this "feed" trash for anything? You mean RSS right? People still use that?

Much less, isn't crapping markup into them the same level of derpitude as making HTML e-mails? A fast way to get blocked as spam or piss off the end user?

That or I'm completely misunderstanding what you said. Honestly the English of that post was as hard to understand and decipher as the OP.

NOT the same thing.

XHTML is HTML basically ghetto-rigged to fit into XML. It is NOT a pure XML format as a lot of things in XML -- like "go ahead and make up your own tags without declaring a namespace/dtd for them" -- is utterly invalid gibberish. HTML tags have specific grammatical meanings, which is why letting users just make up their own tags is ignorant nonsense. XML is all about making up your own tags for whatever you want them to be, something that is USELESS to user-agents trying to convey MEANING.

It is for that reason the later versions of XHTML that were trying to make it pure XML ended up being a technological dead end. Once you start letting people pull their own tags out of their collective backsides, you've pissed on the entire reason HTML even exists in the first damned place.

I see they still basically tell windows users to go F*** themselves with 40+ separate files slopped into FTP with painfully cryptic filenames and zero bloody indication which one is actually the one you should download.

Basically, still acting like big-iron dinosaurs ... or Dark Souls fanboys saying you need to "get good" just to install the bloody thing.

Tell me, has Stallman finally pulled his head out of his ass about supporting arrow keys and the arrows on the numeric keypad, or are the emacs whackjobs still insisting that no keyboard should have more than 58 keys because that's all Wordstar ever needed? Does numpad pgDn still exit the program without even saving?

 

Of course they have umpty-jillion files. You can get any available version as binaries or source. You did read the README file didn't you? Apparently not. It tells you specifically which file to get; Simplest case, for the latest ver on x86 64bit, ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-26/emacs-26.3-x86_64.zip. GNU.org figures you have some minimal degree of computer literacy.

Nope, only that you read the README file. Installation? Download and extract. Boom! You're there, start 'er up.

I started using Emacs in the mid-nineties in Win3 on an x286, which supported the 102 key keyboard. I have no recollection of issues with number pad navigation. But then, I seldom use the number pad for navigation since there are all those navigation keys right next to the main portion of the keyboard. Oh, and PgDn on the number pad does not exit Emacs w/o saving, nor have I ever experienced that issue.

To my knowledge, Stallman has not maintained Emacs for quite a while. You really need to get over your prejudice. I respect your knowledge of web issues, but not your willful ignorance regarding Emacs. It's not for everyone; and neither is any other editor.

g

 

I just find it hard to believe that it's for anyone, given how aggravating EVERYTHING about it is.

But to be fair, I say the same thing about MVC in PHP, bootcrap, turdpress, tailwind, react, vue.js, angular, jQuery, colour syntax highlighting, autocomplete, tag completion, and the Ice Capades. It's like this whole industry thrives on doing everything in as cryptic, convoluted, twisted, and difficult a manner as possible... and then slapping the word "easier" on it no matter how big a bald faced LIE it is.

... and WTF... A windows 3.x version of emacs?!? The WHAT?!? I thought at that point it was strictly *nix since they were the only ones still dicking around with big-iron nonsense like that. Pretty much all *nix-isms and posix-like stuff being the subject of ridicule for a decade and a half by the microcomputer community. Was that NT 3.5 or something?

Oooh... NT 3.5. I still remember accidentally remotely logging into an Aegis missile crusier from BeOS DR4 due to Microsoft's BRILLIANT security; or lack therein. Yeah, that was me.

But seriously, I'd sooner use DOS EDIT.COM (the one that's basically just QBASIC without BASIC) than emacs. I lump emacs alongside EDLIN or 99% of *nix command line editors in terms of being just plain aggravating. The ridiculous 200mb download ALONE should be a warning flag that it's crap.

I guess when you have garbage like joe, nano, and vi to compare to, emacs looks like the prize hog.

-- edit -- now that I know which file to grab (Vivaldi LOVES the broken character encoding on that readme which I had to DL to even open) I see it still goes full jackass opening up a command prompt window in the background because they didn't compile it with the right flags. .. Just like how they're too lazy to build a real MSI.

EVERYTHING about it feels broken, bloated, lazy, inaccessible, and reeking of 30+ years of outright rot. If I wanted to dick around with decades out of date *nix bullshit, I'd drag out the trash-80 Model 12 and boot up Xenix.

The real laugh being the toolbar, menus, program chrome, and so forth reeks of being a garbage Swing based Java crApplet. I know it isn't, but that's what it feels like. Like the Arduino IDE.

 

Yes, I went to the website. ANd , I could not find the download file in it yet. do you use Emacs for web editing.

 

That's because like most FSF / GNU / Posix projects, they treat even the simplest of tasks -- like documentation, downloads, etc -- like you were playing "Dark Souls". They expect you to "get good" enough so you can read their minds on how things work or where you go for things. If you want crappy cryptic documentation, crappy hard to use websites, and needlessly convoluted ways of doing ANYTHING, look not further than something from GNU.

NORMAL people can't use it, only people who've been with and stuck with their BS for decades can understand a word of it. Aka the "big iron" dinosaurs we were making fun of 30 years ago, who through sheer persistence have somehow managed to develop a fanbase... and eventually make software that works. Took what, 25 years of hard work to bring Linux up to parity with Windows 3.1 on actual UX? If talking purely UX it's STILL not caught up to Win98 / NT4.

Part of why I'm not a fan.

 

Yes, I do, and have since the late 90s. I began running Emacs on Win for several years before I switched to Linux.

Go here: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ Going to emacs.org will automatically redirect you.
You will find this button: Windows (I assume you use Win64)
Then go to the emacs-26 directory (latest version)
You don't need the source code, so near the bottom is the binary (already compiled, ready to go) emacs-26.3-x86_64.zip

Unzip it into whichever dir you use for apps you install, then run. Got questions, read the instructions. What could be easier?

:Shrug: