|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 270 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 151 of 270:
| 
Aug 4 21:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 152 of 270:
|
Aug 5 00:28 UTC 2003 |
Seems like vim will behave like vi if you use classic vi commands. The only
thing that ever annoys me about vim setups is the use of color for various
context things; I usually end up turning it off.
|
remmers
|
|
response 153 of 270:
|
Aug 5 01:29 UTC 2003 |
Yes, that's the annoyance that I had in mind.
|
russ
|
|
response 154 of 270:
|
Aug 5 02:36 UTC 2003 |
vi or die.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 155 of 270:
|
Aug 5 03:24 UTC 2003 |
I like the syntax coloring in vim.
Plus I presume for many things you have to press more keys in emacs than in
vim.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 156 of 270:
|
Aug 5 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Whoa, I'm not that geek-a-holic yet. Pico's about all I know.
Besides, much more fun to be a philosopher.
|
remmers
|
|
response 157 of 270:
|
Aug 5 10:48 UTC 2003 |
I like syntax coloring. Emacs and vim both do it pretty well. What annoys
me is vim's coloring of search results, which it likes to remember and use
in my next vim session when I no longer have any interest in the search
item.
|
novomit
|
|
response 158 of 270:
|
Aug 5 11:22 UTC 2003 |
Well, the EMACS vs. vi thing is sort of a philosophical issue to some, so I
don't see what the problem is. Pico is too wimpy to be considered.
|
cross
|
|
response 159 of 270:
|
Aug 5 13:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
novomit
|
|
response 160 of 270:
|
Aug 5 13:21 UTC 2003 |
And ex.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 161 of 270:
|
Aug 5 14:23 UTC 2003 |
I've never been able to deal with vi. I like EMACS and probably will continue
using it until I'm unable to, by virtue of no one else supporting it.
|
dcat
|
|
response 162 of 270:
|
Aug 5 14:28 UTC 2003 |
re 161 -- that'll never happen as long as RMS is still alive, and probably
long after.
re 159 -- I've used ed. I even like ed. ed is fun. :)
I use both Emacs and vi, frequently. I hate pico, and if it weren't built
so tightly into PINE, I'd never use it at all.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 163 of 270:
|
Aug 5 14:58 UTC 2003 |
Just use word, and forget about it.
|
novomit
|
|
response 164 of 270:
|
Aug 5 15:13 UTC 2003 |
Word sucks.
|
remmers
|
|
response 165 of 270:
|
Aug 5 15:19 UTC 2003 |
Anyway, "Word" is a word processor and therefore unsuited to certain
kinds of text editing tasks.
|
novomit
|
|
response 166 of 270:
|
Aug 5 15:24 UTC 2003 |
Of course, there is a handy version of vim for Windows . . . has it's faults,
but better than Notepad.
|
oval
|
|
response 167 of 270:
|
Aug 5 15:31 UTC 2003 |
i alsways wonder why vi/vim users don't use mutt.
|
novomit
|
|
response 168 of 270:
|
Aug 5 15:31 UTC 2003 |
I use mutt usually. At Grex anyway.
|
cross
|
|
response 169 of 270:
|
Aug 5 16:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
novomit
|
|
response 170 of 270:
|
Aug 5 16:26 UTC 2003 |
I've used TECO before. Once. Didn't much like it at the time. Haven't seen
it since.
|
aruba
|
|
response 171 of 270:
|
Aug 5 17:09 UTC 2003 |
From Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal, which I see has just passed
its 20th anniversary: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In some companies, text editing no longer consists of ten engineers
standing in line to use an 029 keypunch. In fact, the building I work
in doesn't contain a single keypunch. The Real Programmer in this
situation has to do his work with a "text editor" program. Most
systems supply several text editors to select from, and the Real
Programmer must be careful to pick one that reflects his personal
style. Many people believe that the best text editors in the world
were written at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center for use on their Alto
and Dorado computers[3]. Unfortunately, no Real Programmer would ever
use a computer whose operating system is called SmallTalk, and would
certainly not talk to the computer with a mouse.
Some of the concepts in these Xerox editors have been incorporated
into editors running on more reasonably named operating systems--
EMACS and VI being two. The problem with these editors is that Real
Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad
a concept in Text Editors as it is in Women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor-- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. TECO, to be precise.
It has been observed that a TECO command sequence more closely
resembles transmission line noise than readable text[4]. One of the
more entertaining games to play with TECO is to type your name in as a
command line and try to guess what it does. Just about any possible
typing error while talking with TECO will probably destroy your
program, or even worse-- introduce subtle and mysterious bugs in a
once working subroutine.
For this reason, Real Programmers are reluctant to actually edit a
program that is close to working. They find it much easier to just
patch the binary object code directly.
|
remmers
|
|
response 172 of 270:
|
Aug 5 18:10 UTC 2003 |
I wrote a few TECO macros in my day. Completely unreadable by
anyone else of course. A bonafide write-only scripting language.
|
novomit
|
|
response 173 of 270:
|
Aug 5 18:22 UTC 2003 |
I am sure Perl could give it a run, if it came to that. I used it only once
on a VMS system. Didn't find it terribly bad, but then again, I only edited
two lines.
|
other
|
|
response 174 of 270:
|
Aug 5 18:26 UTC 2003 |
bbedit
|
tod
|
|
response 175 of 270:
|
Aug 5 19:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|