Okay, so I did some googling; and I'm not quite sure why someone would prefer this over regular GNU Emacs or XEmacs.

Any emacsen around that could shed some light on why you'd use this instead of a more "modern" emacs?

"Nuntio vobis gaudium magnum, habemus editorum."

Now that emacs has been anointed by Linus, I hereby announce emacs the winner of the long lasting editor wars. Let us now proceed to purge vi (and other lesser editors) from the face of the Earth, and let none speak of them again.

</joke>

openbsd has had a (still somewhat-actively-developed) tiny emacs-like editor in its tree called mg for quite a while.

http://pintday.org/hack/mg/

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/mg/

History of Micro-emacs ... http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MicroEmacs

undefined

After having spent some time looking around for a tiny emacsalike ("ersatzemacs") for making quick edits on remote systems, I settled on [zile](http://www.gnu.org/software/zile/).

Am I the only one who feels that it shouldn't be called "Emacs" if it doesn't have Lisp inside it? (Not to be a Lisp fanboy, but that seems to be the defining feature...)

I don't understand: does this link mean that we're looking at Linus's own branch of microemacs/uemacs? Is he patching the one he uses, and if so, are the changes going back into [Jasspa's MicroEmacs](http://www.jasspa.com/)?

I guess he decided to fix it:

http://marc.info/?l=git&m=122955159617722&w=2

I wish I could build this on OS X. I guess I'm writing a patch for it now.

What are the pros and cons of Micro-emacs v. mg?