Best Python editor (under Linux)

[Ganesan R]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Lamb <grey at despair.dmiyu.org> writes:

> On 02 Jan 2003 22:08:36 -0600, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
>> No, it's clearly the former. You're just confused about what a program
>> is. 

> No, I am not confused about what a program is.  However, I do not
> consider overzealous scripts written for an editor to be programs in their
> own right.

I see, it's about scripts. Programs written in Lisp are something beneath
you. That's fine :-).

> Point stands, Emacs is the very antithesis of the proper way to do things.
> It is a monolithic, bloated, musch-cram-every-feature-into-it piece of
> software.  26Mb for a "editor" is not what I consider reasonable or
> keeping in the tradition of small specialized programs that do one task
> well.

Point taken that you don't like Emacs. There's not much useful discussion
anyone can carry with you beyond that. I happen to like Emacs. I actually
that it's a bit bloated. Not 26MB though (more like 8 MB on start up and
then it grows to around 14/15MB because I have too many files open in it). I
prefer to use jed when I need something quick and relatively light weight. I
also happen to like vi. 

"Small specialized programs that do one task well" doesn't fit an editor. An
editor is a general purpose tool and an extensible one is a good thing
(TM). Modern editors come with "plugins" to extend them; guess what - Emacs
does the same thing, only the "plugins" are written in Lisp. 

Every "feature into it" is not part of the emacs core. You're complaining
about the fact that Emacs is extensible? I assume you consider Python
"bloated" because the it ships so many libraries included. You call it
"musch-cram-every-feature-into-it"; I call it "batteries included"
:-). Thanks for listening.

Ganesan

-- 
Ganesan R