news@brl-smoke.ARPA (The News System <news>) (09/25/86)
> > > > I am far more productive with "vi" on UNIX than with any of > > > >the mouse-based editors I've run across on the Mac. > > > > > > Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha > > > > I am in 100% agreement with this. In my opinion, vi is the *worst* > > screen-oriented editor that I have ever had the misfortune of using. > > I am always finding new "features" that I wasn't aware of. Unfortunately, > > the new features I discover usually wipe out random pieces of text > > in mysterious ways that are difficult to reverse. All editors can eat your file. A prudent user covers his behind. At least 'vi' has an 'undo' command to handle the most common errors a neophyte user can make. One can also use the "1p mechanism to recover the last n things (up to 9) deleted. > > > > It all comes of trying to make "ed" look like a screen editor. What > > a kludge! > > Mice don't speak regular expressions, macros, or repetitions of commands.... Indispensible features once you master them. > I don't understand why vi has such a bad rep. The keys are mnemonic, > which is more than I can say for emacs. Touch typists adapt to 'vi' easier than those who hunt & peck. EMACS is a sledge hammer to drive tack, and you can't swing a sledge hammer in a Volkswagon. Not all of us drive a bus. > And what of mouse-based editors? Does anyone really use SUN's > textedit nee edittool? Perhaps it is just a matter of time before > mice become common enuf to plug into a DEC VT-999 and teenyboppers > flood the world with pointy-touchy-feely software. Until then us > crusty old farts will be typing our cryptic command lines. Mice, trackballs, crosshairs, touchpads, touch sensitive screens and the ilk work great in turn-key systems with lay operators and finite, well defined interface requirements. I've used and like INTERLEAF's document editor which is heavily menu and mouse related, now if they would add more command line capability so I could short circuit a half-dozen menu pokes into a 10 character command... All things have their place and time. Evolution weeds out the unadaptable species. Think back on this in 5 years. I'll bet 'vi' will still be widely used long after a dozen mouse editors have vanished. What we really want is a reduction in the "clumsy factor" regardless of the input media.
isaacs@hpccc.HP.COM (Stan Isaacs) (09/27/86)
> Touch typists adapt to 'vi' easier than those who hunt & peck. > EMACS is a sledge hammer to drive tack, and you can't swing a sledge hammer in > a Volkswagon. Not all of us drive a bus. But us bus drivers can't stand small parking places.
gollum@well.UUCP (B. Thompson) (09/27/86)
I've been using vi for about three years now. My previous experience had been everything from Bank Street Writer (kludge++), the editor for Action! (an Atari language), Atariwriter, Applewriter, and many others. I've tried to use Jove, and I'll keep trying. On pc's, I'm getting into Brief (Brief vs. Epsilon is a whole 'nother subject that many feel very strongly about). My point is this: Vi has a lot of power, is mnemonic, and feels very natural (w for word, m for mark, uppercase for above and to the left, lower case commands for the right and below). The main drawback to it is not having windows...that can be a pain sometimes. However, it has good macro and abbreviation capabilites, an extensive undo capability, and an excellent way of setting up tags (mark a place anywhere with any letter a-z). The buffer capability is also extensive (preface with any letter a-z), and can be used for easily transporting text between files. I like being able to give a count to many commands (such as 5dw, delete 5 words), without having to resort to some esc-5-esc-delete-word sequence on jove (however it is done on that editor, it seems to take an awful lot of keys!). What I don't like on vi is having 5 files going, and not being able to easily point at my "args" somehow and switching from file to file. On the other hand, ctags keeps me happy enough. I also want windows, and I want to be able to have macros that will take arguments. I think the main thing that trips people up about vi is the fact that it is not an "all in one mode" editor. But if you stop for a moment and consider that once you are in the "command mode" via esc, you're there! You can then get around very quickly and do a few commands to manipulate buffers without having to hit any control-esc-alt-hyper-meta-coke-bottle-shift-sequences! I'm saying that vi fits in well with peoples natural way of text processing: write, write, write, change, change, write...people write in a moded way, so it makes sense to me to have an editor that works that way.
mike@mipos3.UUCP (Michael Bruck) (09/29/86)
I don't have any real preference for one editor over another, although
I do try to stick to one editor to do most of my work on, but I have noticed
an interesting trend here. We recently switched to Unix workstations from
a VMS environment, and our draughting technicians, who are not CS majors,
or computer afficionados in any way (they just use the machine to get their
work done) have been given a choice of editors (vi and emacs), and without
any prodding, they all seem to be drifting towards using emacs. I haven't
investigated this to find out why yet, but it may be interesting to find out.
--
--Michael Bruck
Corporate CAD, Intel Corp, Santa Clara, California
UUCP: ...{hplabs,decwrl,oliveb,amdcad}!intelca!mipos3!mike
CSNET: mike@mipos3.INTEL.COM
Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do.
The above views are personal.caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (10/01/86)
In article <197@mipos3.UUCP> mike@mipos3.UUCP (Michael Bruck) writes:
:I don't have any real preference for one editor over another, although
:I do try to stick to one editor to do most of my work on, but I have noticed
:an interesting trend here. We recently switched to Unix workstations from
:a VMS environment, and our draughting technicians, who are not CS majors,
:or computer afficionados in any way (they just use the machine to get their
:work done) have been given a choice of editors (vi and emacs), and without
:any prodding, they all seem to be drifting towards using emacs. I haven't
:investigated this to find out why yet, but it may be interesting to find out.
I cut my teeth on Teco (not war?) in the 60's, then moving to ed and vi,
henceforth to CP/M and Mince (Emacs like) and now back to vi (and Emacs on
PC-DOS).
My impression is that Emacs is easier for some forms of editing, but not
maintaining nroff macros and C code. Searching is better on vi once you grok
regular expressions, and global commands are not "native" to Emacs.
My thoughts on Emacs might change if Intel ever makes enough 386 chips for
me to replace my AT motherboard with a Unix friendly engine and run GNU Emacs.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX Author of Pro-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
Voice: 503-621-3406 17505-V Northwest Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
TeleGodzilla BBS: 621-3746 300/1200 CIS:70007,2304 Genie:CAF Source:TCE022
omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourlyado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (10/04/86)
As a kindness to our clerical staff, I teach them how to use "vi." I do this because it's the editor they're most likely to be able to use if they move on to a new job in another UNIX environment. -- UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Ad infinitum is a trademark of Usenet. -- UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA DEC, VAX, Elsie & Ado are Digital, Borden & Ampex trademarks.