|
About:
GNU Zile (Zile is Lossy Emacs) is a small, fast,
and powerful Emacs clone. It is useful for small
footprint installations (e.g. on floppy disk) or
quick editing sessions.
Author:
Reuben Thomas [contact developer]
Homepage:
http://www.gnu.org/software/zile/
Tar/GZ:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/zile/
Bug tracker:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=zile
Trove categories:
[change]
Dependencies:
[change]
ncurses (required)
[download links]
|
|
» Rating:
8.51/10.00
(Rank N/A)
» Vitality: 49.45% (Rank 3)
» Popularity: 3.22% (Rank 1332)
 
(click to enlarge graphs)
Record hits: 53,260
URL hits: 15,797
Subscribers: 56
|
|
Branches
Comments
[»]
Zile rocks!
by Tom Fawcett - Oct 28th 2007 19:31:59
I've been using zile for several years now. It's one of the first
utilities I install on a new system. Thanks, Reuben!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Where's the 2.2.16 tarball?
by Edward C. Bailey - Jul 22nd 2006 10:29:49
I followed the link to download 2.2.16, and it's not there; I also searched
through the Zile sourceforge site and found no indication of 2.2.16 (or
anything explaining what happened to it). Was a decision made to pull the
release?
I'm looking forward to my next Zile fix! :-)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Where's the 2.2.16 tarball?
by Reuben Thomas - Jul 22nd 2006 11:25:32
Sorry about that, the release never got made, because my SF password
expired, but I didn't notice the error message. You should now find it
there.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Where's the 2.2.16 tarball?
by Edward C. Bailey - Jul 22nd 2006 13:44:32
> Sorry about that, the release never got
> made, because my SF password expired,
> but I didn't notice the error message.
> You should now find it there.
Yay -- thanks!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
nice idea, would like to see more documentation
by Ben Crowell - Jan 22nd 2005 17:07:00
I like this idea a lot. For me, emacs is an editor, not a religion, and I
don't really want the bloat. I especially hate the way emacs tries too
hard to be smart, and it's hard to convince it not to be too smart. For
instance, when I'm editing a .tex file, it translates the " character
to two apostrophes, even if what I really want is a ". Zile doesn't do
that, and that makes me happy.
My only complaint so far is about the documentation. E.g., it says that -h
turns on the mini help menu, when actually the mini help menu is on in the
default configuration, and I actually couldn't figure out how to make it
turned off by default. Also, there is a brief section on differences from
emacs, but I could use more information here. For example, I can't tell
without experimenting whether syntax coloring and automatic indentation
are provided. (And in fact, I hope they're not, because I don't like the
way emacs does them by default.)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: nice idea, would like to see more documentation
by Ben Crowell - Jan 22nd 2005 17:25:55
Ah, my bad, the way to turn off the mini help is documented (need to have
novice-level = false in your .zilerc). I guess the -h option is a holdover
from a time when novice-level wasn't the default...?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: nice idea, would like to see more documentation
by Reuben Thomas - Jan 23rd 2005 05:14:05
Can you tell me where -h is documented? I can't find it in 2.0beta8
(perhaps you're using something rather older?). I have tried to tidy up
the docs for the 2.0 release, and I'd like to remove inaccuracies like
this.
I'll try to improve the "Differences from Emacs" section as you suggest.
Basically, Zile is supposed to be a strict subset of Emacs, so anything
not mentioned in the docs is not there.
Finally, it's better to write to zile-devel@users.sf.net, as your comments
will be acted on more speedily there. Filing bugs and feature requests
directly in the relevant trackers at http://sf.net/projects/zile/ will
also be greatly appreciated.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Why not use Emacs?
by Sandro Sigala - Sep 14th 2000 13:05:54
From the features list in the Info documentation:
- Small but fast and powerful. It is very useful for small
footprint installations (like on floppy disk) or quick editing
sessions.
That's why sometimes (X)Emacs isn't the best editor to use :-)
P.S. I use XEmacs myself when I do coding, but I use Zile when I have,
let's say, to quick edit the dot files in the home
directory; I don't want to wait 5 seconds to load XEmacs for doing
a 2 seconds editing... :-|
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Why not use Emacs?
by Walles - Sep 14th 2000 10:09:05
If you want an editor that is as similar to Emacs as possible, why not just
use Emacs?
Cheers //Johan
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Why not use Emacs?
by Simon Kagstrom - Sep 7th 2006 01:01:48
> If you want an editor that is as similar
> to Emacs as possible, why not just use
> Emacs?
Zile is one of the first packages I install on new systems. I'm a heavy
emacs user, but Zile is really just a complement to Emacs. For example,
when I want to do a quick edit of a configuration file, I start Zile from
the command line and is done with it in no-time. It's basically a
replacement for vi for me.
So to the author: Thanks a lot for zile!
// Simon
[reply]
[top]
|
