Hey Nancy!

MK> with macros etc. it comes in at around 6M soaking wet.  Not too
shabby.

> Not bad, in today's world, for sure.

Compared to Emacs for sure and that is putting it mildly.  For testing the
evil, demented plan this will do.  I can live without it but thought this
might be a good exersize and who knows?

> MicroEMACS 3.8b, and I'm sure it's a lot smaller.

I don't doubt that.

> This is probably only a 16 bit system, too.

Right.  It'll never fly beyond DOS.  Perhaps emulated (eg dosemu) but I
doubt it is worth the effort given other alternatives that superceded DOS
before DOS even existed.  I don't miss it at all although I did miss qedit
at first.  I learned to live without it.  Having said that I do understand
why it all works for you.  However I wouldn't bet the farm you'll get away
with it forever.  ;-)

> I've liked this well enough for the years I've been using
> it, just enough features to be helpful and not so much bells
> and whistles as to make it complicated or bloated

Although the one I am looking at is probably different the basic idea is
likely very simular.  I can readily see why it would be a boon on DOS.
Still haven't tested all the functionality but I think it would make a
great basis for an offline reader/editor.  Speaking of which, today I
managed to compile a {x,y,z}modem dealie thanks to some patches from
Slackware and will have to try and farm that out to a perl telnet script to
see if it actually works.  Without knowing for sure yet my money would
still be on ftp as the clear winner but now I will have a basis for
comparison ... if it even really works that is.  Too many hoops to jump
through, especially given the health of BBSing in general, nevermind
zmodem.  Stinkin' zmodem!

Hm.  Why am I doing any of this?  I seem to have forgotten.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag