From: James Crippen
Subject: Emacs recommendations on Mac OS X
Date: 
Message-ID: <1149292039.520112.216400@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Which Emacs do 9 out of 10 Lisp Hackers prefer on OS X? FSF Emacs
Carbon? XEmacs Carbon? Emacs.app? Climacs on X11? Something else?
From: billc
Subject: Re: Emacs recommendations on Mac OS X
Date: 
Message-ID: <1149296260.116794.174470@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
> Which Emacs do 9 out of 10 Lisp Hackers prefer on OS X? FSF Emacs
> Carbon? XEmacs Carbon? Emacs.app? Climacs on X11? Something else?

I use Aquamacs Emacs most of the time. I have also compiled CVS emacs
to replace the out-of-date terminal emacs that comes with OS X as I
sometimes use emacs in a terminal. I also have a copy of Carbon Emacs
compiled from CVS which I keep for testing purposes. However, for the
most part, I normally use Aquamacs Emacs.

Aquamacs Emacs provides an excellent emacs experience and integrates
well with OS X. It is basically just cvs emacs plus a lot of elisp
libraries (which can be "turned off" if you don't want/need them -
there is a customization group called "Aquamacs-is-more-than-Emacs"
that contains all of the defaults in Aquamacs that are different from
GNU Emacs). Although it is "targeted" towards people who want a more
Mac-like emacs, it is really also quite a good option for people who
would normally be using Carbon Emacs. There are nightly builds of
Aquamacs available (which are always built with the latest CVS Emacs),
so you never have to worry about use an "ancient" emacs that is more
than a day old. ;-)

--
Bill Clementson
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Emacs recommendations on Mac OS X
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2bqtbglce.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
"James Crippen" <········@gmail.com> writes:

> Which Emacs do 9 out of 10 Lisp Hackers prefer on OS X? FSF Emacs
> Carbon? XEmacs Carbon? Emacs.app? Climacs on X11? Something else?

I prefer to build FSF Emacs from CVS using:

  make-package --self-contained

in the mac/ subdirectory. I'm not sure if that's FSF Emacs Carbon or
Emacs.app. Anyway, it produces an Emacs that runs as a regular Mac app
(I.e. an Emacs.app directory that gets installed under /Applications/)
but is also a "normal" Emacs that behaves the same as Emacs on
GNU/Linux or FSF Emacs on Windows.

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel           * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp  * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: Emacs recommendations on Mac OS X
Date: 
Message-ID: <873belvmr0.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> writes:

> "James Crippen" <········@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Which Emacs do 9 out of 10 Lisp Hackers prefer on OS X? FSF Emacs
> > Carbon? XEmacs Carbon? Emacs.app? Climacs on X11? Something else?
> 
> I prefer to build FSF Emacs from CVS using:
> 
>   make-package --self-contained

I didn't know about that option.  I have my own scripts that have done
the same basic thing.  I haven't compiled a new one lately.  What I've
got seems to work ok.

-- 
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider
The lithobraker.  Zero distance stops at any speed.
From: ········@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Emacs recommendations on Mac OS X
Date: 
Message-ID: <1149715094.208925.99120@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
James Crippen wrote:
> Which Emacs do 9 out of 10 Lisp Hackers prefer on OS X? FSF Emacs
> Carbon? XEmacs Carbon? Emacs.app? Climacs on X11? Something else?

I guess I'm the 1 out of 10 who uses XEmacs Carbon.  Its not exactly
fun to build, but it isn't particularly difficult.  And its XEmacs,
which is what I'm used to.
comp.lang.lisp / 2006 / jun