XEmacs 与 Emacs 哪个更适合 C++
XEmacs 和 Emacs 哪个是更好的 C++ 编程编辑器？
which is better editor for C++ programming XEmacs or Emacs?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
XEmacs 和 Emacs 哪个是更好的 C++ 编程编辑器？
which is better editor for C++ programming XEmacs or Emacs?
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
接受 或继续使用网站，即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
发布评论
评论（7）
GNU Emacs 和 XEmacs 之间差异的维基百科描述。
在我看来，几年前 GNU Emacs 21 发布后，XEmacs 的开发就开始停滞不前。现在大多数 elisp 软件包都是为 GNU Emacs 编写的，并且不能保证它们可以在 XEmacs 中工作。
Wikipedia description of differences between GNU Emacs and XEmacs.
In my opinion, XEmacs development started to stagnate several years ago, after release of GNU Emacs 21. Most elisp packages are written for GNU Emacs nowadays and they aren't guaranteed to work in the XEmacs.
Steve Yegge 做了一些很棒的事情关于为什么应该使用 GNU Emacs 的要点。 还有一篇关于有效使用 Emacs 的精彩文章。 如今，我会远离 XEmacs，除非您有特定的理由使用它。
Steve Yegge makes some great points on why you should use GNU Emacs. Along with having a great article on using Emacs effectively. These days, I'd stay away from XEmacs unless you have a specific reason to use it.
哪个编辑器更适合编写 C++ 代码这个问题的答案是，对于该功能来说，实际上没有区别。 一个具有的功能，另一个也具有类似的功能。 您挑选并选择您喜欢的一个。
它们之间存在差异，对于某些任务，其中一个可能比另一个更好。 例如，Mule，多语言文件的 XEmacs 实现； XEmacs 做得对，但 Emacs 在某些方面仍然存在问题。 这取决于任务。 每个人都在某些任务上表现更好，而对于许多任务来说，没有实际差异。
至于 XEmacs 尚未得到积极开发——我和儿子去年编写了一个 lisp 程序来实现图标主题。 我们还编写了一个缓冲区颜色程序，以便轻松更改不同缓冲区中的颜色，包括基于规则的颜色和任意选择的颜色。
这两个包在 Emacs 中的存在方式都不一样。 我们还重写了 xpm 模式，将其从 400 行代码增加到 2000 多行代码，添加了对 alpha 图层、渐变填充的支持，改进了显示，添加了更多工具（鼠标光标工具，如画笔）和新的图标栏运行一切以及更多......就在去年夏天。 用于制作和编辑图标（以及其他类型的 xpm）的更好工具。 Emacs 还没有这个功能，尽管他们肯定可以移植它。
我只是说，XEmacs 的开发速度已经慢了很多，但它仍然在开发中。
根据手头的任务选择您喜欢的编辑器 - 而不是人们所说的不再开发的编辑器！
The answer to the question of which editor is better for writing C++ code is that for that functionality, there is practically no difference. What one has, the other has similar functions. You pick and choose the one you like.
There are differences between them, and for certain tasks one might be better better than the other. For example, Mule, the XEmacs implementation for multilingual files; XEmacs got it right, and Emacs still has trouble with some aspects of that. It depends on the task. Each is better at some tasks, and for many tasks, there is no practical difference.
As far as XEmacs not being actively developed--My son and I wrote a lisp program to implement icon themes in the last year. We also wrote a buffer-colors program to make it easy to change colors in different buffers, both rule-based, and arbitrarily chosen colors.
Neither of those packages exist in Emacs the same way. We also rewrote the xpm-mode, taking it from 400 lines to over 2000 lines of code, adding support for alpha layers, gradient fills, improved the display, added more tools (mouse cursor tools, like a paintbrush) and a new icon bar to run everything from and more... just last summer. Much better tool for making and editing icons (and other types of xpm's). Emacs doesn't have that yet, though they certainly could port it over.
I'm just saying, XEmacs development has slowed down a lot, but it is still being developed.
Choose the editor you like based on the task at hand--not on which one people say is no longer being developed!
恕我直言，对于 C++ 开发来说，它们之间没有太多选择，因为基本工具都适用于两者。 这些天它们在 GNU Emacs 中的工作可能稍微好一些，因为我的印象是现在针对这两种情况的人越来越少了。 两者都有 GUI，但根据我的经验，你最好在一段时间后关闭它的部分内容。
我一直是 XEmacs 的长期用户，直到大约两年前，我才清楚地意识到，与 GNU Emacs 开发相比，XEmacs 开发似乎相当落后——过去恰恰相反。 我毫不费力地成功切换，并从那时起一直在使用各种 GNU Emacsen。 此外，您还会发现 Emacs 最近向其他平台（例如 Carbon Emacs、Aquamacs 或 EmacsW32）的许多移植都是基于 GNU Emacs。
IMHO there isn't that much to chose between them for C++ development as the basic tools work for both. They're probably working slightly better in GNU Emacs these days as I get the impression that fewer people are targeting both these days. Both have a GUI, but in my experience you're better off switching off parts of it after a short while.
I've been a long-time XEmacs user until about two years ago when it became clear that compared to GNU Emacs development, XEmacs development seems to be lagging behind considerably- used to be the other way around. I managed to switch without too much effort and have been using various GNU Emacsen ever since. Also, you'll find that a lot of the recent ports of Emacs to other platforms like Carbon Emacs, Aquamacs or EmacsW32 are all based on GNU Emacs.
目前最好使用 GNU Emacs，因为与 XEmacs 相比，它现在具有更多功能。 Cedet 目前在 GNU Emacs 上工作得更好
Currently is better to use GNU Emacs, as it has more features now, comparing with XEmacs. And Cedet currently better works on GNU Emacs
Xemacs 尚未积极开发，因此 emacs 是 emacs 实现的唯一选择。
Xemacs is not under active development, so emacs is the only choice of emacs implementations.
Emacs 长期以来在所有平台上都支持 GUI。
除了对外观和感觉的偏好之外，我唯一能想到的是我听说两者之间存在一些 elisp 兼容性问题。
编辑： EmacsWiki 有一篇 EmacsAndXEmacs 比较文章。
Emacs has long had GUI support on all platforms.
Other than just preference for look and feel, the only think I could think of is that I've heard there are some elisp compatibility issues between the two.
Edit: EmacsWiki has a EmacsAndXEmacs comparison article.