Best Python editor (under Linux)

Mike Meyer mwm at
Fri Jan 3 05:08:36 CET 2003

Steve Lamb <grey at> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 23:25:06 -0800, faust <urfaust at> wrote:
>     Ah yes, Emacs.  Emacs is the proof that even the most die hard unix fan
> can succumb to creeping featurism.  Why?  Well think about it, "the unix way"
> is to have a collection of small tools which are interchangable, communicate
> with each other well and each do their specific task quite well.  "The windows
> way" is to lump every unrelated task into every program in an attempt to out
> check-box the competition on a comparisoon pamphlet.  Now, I ask you, which
> describes Emacs?  Clearly the latter.

No, it's clearly the former. You're just confused about what a program
is. That it's conventional to run multiple programs on one instance of
the interpreter doesn't make all those programs part of one big
program, any more than all Python programs are part of one program
because they require the same runtime support.

>     I never quite understood what a mail and news reader had to do with
> editing files yet every time the "best mail|news reader for unix" comes up
> gnus is top of the list.  Noone has yet to explain to me why I would want to
> install a 20+Mb editor just for a newsreader.

You'd do it because it's the best newsreader for the job at hand. Just
as you'd install a Python interpreter to run a python program that
happens to be the best one available for the job at hand.

>     Of course people have called Emacs a "work environment".  Fine.  When
> people ask for an editor don't reply with a "work environment".

The python-mode for emacs is a python editor. Insisting that it isn't
a valid answer to the request for a python editor because it requires
an emacs runtime environment makes no more sense than discounting IDLE
because it requires a Python runtime envirnoment.

Mike Meyer <mwm at>
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

More information about the Python-list mailing list