Re: Does anyone really use emacs in terminal?

[ken]

On 05/05/2013 11:31 PM Jason White wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie  <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
> > Are you suggesting you're willing to put in the work to remove terminal
> > support from Emacs?  It'd be a lot of work.  What would be the point?
>
> Exactly. And if anyone is seriously proposing to remove terminal support,
> could they also implement all of the necessary ATK interfaces to enable my
> braille display to be used with Emacs under X11 and GTK? It works wonderfully
> at the console and also over ssh connections, thanks to the terminal display
> code in Emacs, removal of which would be a major regression for my use cases.
>
> I should mention that I use Emacspeak for speech output and highly recommend
> it; Emacspeak can run equally well in a terminal or under X, but for braille
> access (using a refreshable braille device) Emacs really must be run in a
> terminal session.

Occasionally I need to work on a remote server which doesn't have X 
running and have to do extensive editing, not trivial enough to use vi. 
 So, yes, in those instances it's nice not to have to learn a new 
editor-- which would be the only alternative.

Also, I've run emacs in batch mode to extensively edit thousands of 
files non-interactively all "at once", something which would have taxed 
my sed, awk, and grep skills and required a much longer time to develop 
than it did using emacs.

Emacs isn't simply an editor in the sense that Word is an editor. 
Stallman, in fact, prefers the term "text processor" to describe emacs, 
and as the people above indicate, it's a very extensible one at that.