From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jec@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Is Emacs One or Three? (was: vi rulez)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:12:45 +0100
In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of 12 Apr 1996 23:29:48 +0200
References: <4kdndb$sqm@news.uit.no> <4kjh3c$lcj@newslink.runet.edu>
<4kk2hg$bb1@news.uit.no> <rj4tqpb06r.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>
Message-Id: <dh368b14aqr.fsf@calvay.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted as well.
Dear Fellow Preachers,
In article <rj4tqpb06r.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>,
in response to an infidel, Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
PA> On the other hand, an argument can be made that Emacs *is* an os.
PA> You can't get much closer to the os than that.
Although I agree with you on the fundamental idea, I am afraid that
this sentence diminishes The One Editor, and disposes of one of its
fundamental mysteries; were we all not to know your usually perfect
orthodoxy, cries of blasphemy would be heard.
Emacs (let His name be honoured forever) is not only an OS; it is an
OS *and* a programming language (The One Programming Language -- see
alt.religion.lisp) *and* a set of editors, the programming language
being the personnification of the link between the editors and the
OS. Whether Emacs is One in Three or Three in One remains an open
theological question.
Let the benediction of Emacs always be upon your head,
Juliusz Chroboczek
P.S. There is no Editor but Emacs. Don't forget, however, that Unix
is usually its prophet.