tran@peora.ccur.com (Nhan Tran) (07/03/90)
Someone told me there is a vi-like editor for PC, (something call stevie)
Is it available on some sites for ftp. I appreciate if any of you could tell
me that.
=============================================================================
___________
/ _________/_ Nha^n Tra^`n
/_/________/ / uucp: ..!{uiucuxc,masscomp}!peora!tran
Concurrent /__________/ Internet: tran@peora.sdc.ccur.com
Computer Corporation (407) 850-1040 ext 41
_____________________________________________________________________________ctt31684@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/03/90)
I just had to reply... I can't IMAGINE why anyone would use vi when given a screen editor. But getting back the the main point, sorry I don't know any ftp sites that have your program. I do, however, know another kinda-like-vi-but-not-exactly-and-to-some-very-different editor called Xedit (found on most CMS systems -- who's using them now right?). Anyway, the editor is called Keditor (all the command are the same as X, even the screen is somewhat alike). To me Xedit is the closest thing I know to vi. It's a commercial program though, so you won't be able to find it on ftp sites. I think it costs about $50-100. -Ching
wchan@umd5.umd.edu (Winthrop D Chan) (07/03/90)
Not true. Believe it or not, there IS a VI editor for the IBM-PC. I don't know
if the author was a mental patient or what, but you can find it on
umd5.umd.edu for Anonymous FTP. Believe it or not, quite a few people actually
use it because they do not feel like learning 10 different editors when they
switch from Vax to PC to whatever. VI is literally the only universal editor
around with the exception of emacs and it's mutations.
Winthrop Chan
=============================================================================
<------- ____ This is how most Computer Science majors look
&&& / \ __ _____, after staying up all night for a few weeks
`-- | o \' ` &&/ and living off of vending machine food.
`| | o },-'
\____( )__/ Winthrop Desmond Chan
,' \' \
/~~~~~~|. | .}~~~\ producer@cscwam.umd.edu producer@eng.umd.edu
,-----( . | .}--.
| . /\___/ wchan@umd5.umd.edu wchan@linus.umd.edu
`----^,\ \ wchan@snoopy.umd.edu wchan@umdd.umd.edu
\_ | ACK!
==============================================================================t-rayc@microsoft.UUCP (Raymond CHEN) (07/05/90)
In article <46500136@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> ctt31684@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I just had to reply... So did I. >To me Xedit is the closest thing I know to vi. To everybody else out there who hasn't used Xedit, let me warn you that Xedit is nothing like vi. Xedit breaks the screen into different sections; for example, typing the letter "d" and hitting "Enter" has the following effects, depending on where you typed the "d": In the text region: Inserts the letter d into your document. In the prefix region: Deletes the line from the document. In the command region: Move the "current line" down one line. Xedit was designed for the IBM 3270 terminal family, which means that nothing actually happens until you hit "Enter". (Modulo function keys with the "IMMEDIATE" attribute.) Summary: Although more flexible, Xedit is clumsier to use. Xedit's column operations are useful when editing fixed-field data files. (Very handy when editing punch cards. I'm not joking.)
dev@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) (07/06/90)
In article <55644@microsoft.UUCP> t-rayc@microsoft.UUCP (Raymond CHEN) writes: >In article <46500136@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> ctt31684@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>I just had to reply... >>To me Xedit is the closest thing I know to vi. Hello, I have a public domain vi editor, a passable version. I use it for quick edits. Has most editing commands, but the : commands are quite limited. Larry Weeks -- Larry Weeks |"Take time to deliberate, but when the time for Purdue University | action has arrived, stop thinking and go in." Astro. Engineering | -- Napoleon Bonaparte dev@ecn.purdue.edu |"Education is a journey, not a destination."
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/06/90)
In article <55644@microsoft.UUCP>, t-rayc@microsoft.UUCP (Raymond CHEN) writes:
: To everybody else out there who hasn't used Xedit, let me warn you
: that Xedit is nothing like vi. Xedit breaks the screen into different
: sections; for example, typing the letter "d" and hitting "Enter" has
: the following effects, depending on where you typed the "d":
And vi will delete a line if prefixed with ':', will delete depending on
the next and previous character typed, or will be entered into your document
if you are in insert mode.
: Xedit was designed for the IBM 3270 terminal family, which means that
: nothing actually happens until you hit "Enter". (Modulo function
: keys with the "IMMEDIATE" attribute.)
Are 'clear', pa1, and pa2 included in these function keys?
: Summary: Although more flexible, Xedit is clumsier to use. Xedit's
: column operations are useful when editing fixed-field data files.
: (Very handy when editing punch cards. I'm not joking.)
I'd say the most useful standalone capability of XEDIT is the 'all'
command (yeah I know 'all' is a macro, but its easier to explain 'all'
then the displayterm parameters). 'all' allows you to hide a section of
text that you don't want to look at, and/or show you just the sections
of text you want to look at. With the list of manuals in a file I use
XEDIT's all command to do simple database queries. While I can do
something similar with grep, I can't do things like 'all/rscs/ & /intro/'
(show me all lines with the string 'rscs' and 'intro' independently
of order) unless I want to do '[ri][sn][ct][sr]' But I will also get
anything with strings such as 'rncr'. Another capability similar to
'all' is the exclude capability. When adding logic to a routine, I will
often write the addition and then put in the variable declarations (yeah
I know I'm supposed to do it the other way). I tell xedit not to show
me the lines I've already done. Therefore I can fit both the declaration
section and code usage section on the same screen, even though there may
be a hundred or more lines of code between them that is currently hidden.
Or, when programming in Pascal, I keep just the procedure declarations
visible, and the logic excluded, so I can easily go back and forth across
the list of subroutines to find out what arguements routine 'abc' wanted.
But, the single must useful integrated capability of XEDIT is the ability
shared by all (what I consider real) editors, a real macro language with
the capability of putting in 'if/then/else' statements, executing editor
commands, etc. So far I've only used XEDIT, Emacs, and Interact, but I'm
sure there are others. For this, vi doesn't hack it because I know no way
of putting in 'if this line contains symbol ABC then do DEF otherwise do
GHI'.
As far as clumsier goes, I find vi far more clumsier to use than XEDIT,
but that is a personal preference. Also note that on a daily basis I
use vi, XEDIT, and Wordstar with about equal amounts.
--
Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102
uucp !andromeda!galaxy!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp ***
bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet or ken@orion.njit.edumlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (07/06/90)
>I'd say the most useful standalone capability of XEDIT is the 'all' >command (yeah I know 'all' is a macro, but its easier to explain 'all' Wow! The same thing I tell everyone! 'all' has to be experienced to be appreciated fully. It is a very foreign concept to most other editor users. In particular, the mechanism of XEDIT which is used to implement 'all' is very powerful, and lends itself to similar macros based on the same concept. ... >But, the single must useful integrated capability of XEDIT is the ability >shared by all (what I consider real) editors, a real macro language with >the capability of putting in 'if/then/else' statements, executing editor >commands, etc. Assuming one has REXX to go with it (you surely don't mean EXEC/EXEC2). ... >As far as clumsier goes, I find vi far more clumsier to use than XEDIT, >but that is a personal preference. Also note that on a daily basis I >use vi, XEDIT, and Wordstar with about equal amounts. Before flaming XEDIT too badly, one MUST try the PC implementation known as KEDIT from Mansfield Software. Has the same look and feel as the mainframe XEDIT does, but without the clumsyness about having to hit ENTER or a PFKEY for something to happen. Better than the original! And it has the powerful 'all' thingie, along with either full REXX or a built-in subset of it, depending on what one is willing to pay. Rumor has it that similar tools will soon be available on UNIX systems.. I've heard of a beta copy somewhere. ___Mark S. Lord______________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!bmerh614!mlord | These are my opinions only.| |________________________________|____________________________|
deng@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mingqi Deng) (07/08/90)
Stevie VI editor is available at SIMTEL20.ARPA. Its full path name is pd1:<msdos.editor>stevi69x.zip. The source is also in the same direcotory, named as stevi69s.zip. This is almost a true clone of vi e.g., escape to dos like Ctrl-Z in UNIX, file size limited only by available memory, alternating files and a built-in help -- extremely valuble to beginners. The binary version was compiled using Turbo C after some changes to the source. I suppose it would come out even better when compiled using MicroSoft 5.x C. If any of you who happens to have access to MicroSoft 5.x C and gets stevi compiled, I would appreciate getting a copy of the executable. By the way, I enjoy vi a lot. Its tag, yank, save/jump to register, mark, the 'g' command, undo, repeat, powerful cursor movement (^, 0, $, G, w, Ee, Bb, MLH, hjkl, ^F, ^E, Ff, %, etc.) and its integration with delete/yank, etc., are incredibly handy. Most of these commands require only ONE key stroke WITHIN finger's reach, which I found extremely valuable to anyone who needs to do a lot of quick editing, as versus to typing lengthy text. That is the main reason turning me away from most editors, even like the powerful XEDIT, emacs. To be honest, VI could use some enhancement such as windows, text-formatting, and query-replace in emacs, and 'ALL' in XEDIT. And it is relatively hard to use VI to its full power since its goodies are "hidden", Stevie took a very nice step to include a built-in help. Good luck! Mingqi
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (07/08/90)
deng@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mingqi Deng) writes: > Stevie VI editor is available at SIMTEL20.ARPA. Its full path name [...] > The binary version was compiled using Turbo C after some changes to the > source. I suppose it would come out even better when compiled using > MicroSoft 5.x C. If any of you who happens to have access to MicroSoft > 5.x C and gets stevi compiled, I would appreciate getting a copy of the > executable. OK, I gotta ask... why would STEVIE be better if compiled under MSC? I got the sources and compiled under Turbo C, and I have no complaints. The only changes required were in the makefile. I like STEVIE... I even installed a restricted-user mode, so it can be used as a BBS message editor. -- Roy M. Silvernail | 'I don't see why you people | Opinions found now available at: | seem to think this is magic... | herein are mine, cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | Its just this little chromium | but you can rent (cyberspace... be here!)| switch here...[click]' | them.
deng@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mingqi Deng) (07/09/90)
In article <9JDZL1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > >> Stevie VI editor is available at SIMTEL20.ARPA. Its full path name > >[...] > >OK, I gotta ask... why would STEVIE be better if compiled under MSC? >I got the sources and compiled under Turbo C, and I have no complaints. >The only changes required were in the makefile. > I got a copy of the executable from SIMTEL20. It was compiled using Turbo C after some modification to the source to suppress Turbo C complaints (discussed in readme file). THe reason why I suspect it better if compiled using MSC with no modification to the source is this: with 450K free memory, it can only allow a file of size 120K to be edited, while a half-sized file requies less than half memory. It has few minor bugs too. This might have to do with the modification, or with how the two compiler allocate dynamic memories and optimize codes. I am amzed that you did not have to modify the sorce when compiling it using Turbo C. Could you send me a uuencoded copy of the executable for me to try out? Thanks in advance. Mingqi
strike@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Tim Bowser) (07/10/90)
t-rayc@microsoft.UUCP (Raymond CHEN) writes: >Summary: Although more flexible, Xedit is clumsier to use. Xedit's >column operations are useful when editing fixed-field data files. >(Very handy when editing punch cards. I'm not joking.) I know nothing about IBM terminals. I do know about a shareware vi editor for the DOS computers called "VI19". According to our local Xenix addicts, it is the closest thing you can get to the vi editor without having to deal with the *nix operating system. It's only (and possibly fatal) flaw is that the editor does not have word wrap, or the ability to use the equivalent of the .exrc file. That omission aside, it does well enough in the emulation that we recommend it to our users for vi training at home. -- Tim Bowser ("Strikemaster") | Standard | mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!strike Enterprise Information System | Disclaimer | strike@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US Marquette, Mi. USA | Here | Voice:(906)-346-6735 => UNIX: The Adventure Begins... To vi, or not to vi, that is the question. <=
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (07/12/90)
In article <F20!=o-@cs.psu.edu> deng@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mingqi Deng) writes: > >To be honest, VI could use some enhancement such as windows, >text-formatting, and query-replace in emacs, and 'ALL' in XEDIT. >And it is relatively hard to use VI to its full power since its >goodies are "hidden", Stevie took a very nice step to include a built-in >help. InfoWorld (April 30, 1990) described ProEdit, by Buzzwords Int'l, which seems to have much of what you/we are looking for. Its price, however (~295) is comparable to a two-user Xenix/UNIX package. Does anyone have any experience with this package?
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (07/13/90)
> In article <9JDZL1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > > > >> Stevie VI editor is available at SIMTEL20.ARPA. Its full path name > > > >[...] The executable size of any 'in memory' editor is always a major consideration, Norton's seems to be the only one I can use when 'shelled-out'. Hasn't anyone tried compiling STEVIE with TC++ or MSC6.0, using overlays? Anyone care to comment on whether I should try? (I got TC++ professional in the UK for #229 including VAT, a bit steep compared to US prices, but it's well worth it.) Personally, I liked Stevie because I could never get a working termcap for the EANSI.SYS for my Paradise Prodesigner EVGA, so VI was very ill-behaved, but I gather that STEVIE doesn't use terminfo. I do have an annoying problem with it though, hitting the Esc key twice causes the screen to invert and lock-up for about 10 seconds, instead of just ignoring the extra Esc. Is there an easy fix for this? Why not have inverted/noninv video depict modes? One of the things both VI and STEVIE lack is a status line, probably the main reason DOSsers tend to avoid it. I tried Sidekick some time back, and liked it, but couldn't figure out how to remove it without rebooting. When I gave up looking for a manual, I erased it, partly through frustration, and partly on the assumption that it was a pirated copy. For now, I'll stay with Stevie as I work 60% under U*IX, but I'm still looking for the perfect editor/WP - aren't we all? Dave E. NB : apologies to anyone expecting replies to mail, particularly someone at Microsoft, I've had an inordinate amount of bouncers lately.
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (07/13/90)
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) writes: > I do have an annoying problem > with it though, hitting the Esc key twice causes the screen to invert and > lock-up for about 10 seconds, instead of just ignoring the extra Esc. Is > there an easy fix for this? There are 2 ways to fix this... If you just want the inverse flash to be shorter, get rid of the delay(600) in the vbeep() function in DOS.C. If you prefer to have a real audio beep, change the vbeep define in PARAM.C to FALSE. -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual now available at: | main(){ | reality need cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? (cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me