ury@cosmos.huji.ac.il (ury segal) (06/02/91)
Let's stop the war. I steel don't need the great features of EMACS, and if your'e writing books of papers - EMACS is much better. I'm a programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). Ofcourse you can write lisp-like script to make it ^G. but this is not simple as writing "what-line". after all, Most of the time I'm thinking, not writing, and if I have to correct erorrs, It's only 1 char or 1 func. (Beep, Beep, Beep) *** Final shutdown message from (ury@stupid_argue) *** argue goes down *now* Welcome to your terminal server (ls1) ls1 >
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (06/03/91)
>Let's stop the war. I steel don't need the great features of EMACS, and You aren't talking about "EMACS". You're talking about "GNU EMACS". >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. That's always annoyed me about gnumacs as well, but I haven't taken the time to fix it. Microemacs, for example, gives you that information with the buffer-position function, which is bound by default to C-X= (two keystrokes). I believe that Unipress's does as well. > Ofcourse >you can write lisp-like script to make it ^G. Actually, with gnumacs, it *is* lisp. Other implementations have other extension languages. -- Fly to the sky on GI-GI____________ and shout to datri@convex.com
Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM (06/03/91)
>>>>> On 2 Jun 91 18:49:43 GMT, datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) said: > I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). Anthony> 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. Anthony> That's always annoyed me about gnumacs as well, but I haven't Anthony> taken the time to fix it. Microemacs, for example, gives you Anthony> that information with the buffer-position function, which is Anthony> bound by default to C-X= (two keystrokes). [GNU Emacs]: (describe-key "^X=") what-cursor-position: Print info on cursor position (on screen and within buffer). (describe-key ^Xl") count-lines-page: Report number of lines on current page, and how many are before or after point. (describe-key "ESC=") count-lines-region: Print number of lines in the region. etc. But you have to bind what-line to a key if you don't want to say ESC x what-line. I have earlier posted why GNU Emacs users rarely care about line numbers. Hint: do ESC x compile, or ESC x grep; or ESC x apropos tags.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. I get 9 too. M-x wha<SPACE>l<SPACE><RETURN>. You could bind that to a key if you frequently use it. I have bound C-x C-l to goto-line, and I use C-x l for count-lines-page(I don't use that often). That's always annoyed me about gnumacs as well, but I haven't taken the time to fix it. Microemacs, for example, gives you that information with the buffer-position function, which is bound by default to C-X= (two keystrokes). I believe that Unipress's does as well. It's a simply fix to rebind any key. Would you really use another editor that doesn't have an undo or autosave just because you don't like one or two key bindings in GNU Emacs? -Mike
de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com>, datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > >>programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). > >10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. Anyone who's not test-driven one of the partial completion packages floating around should do themselves a favor and do so. Partial completion lets you abbreviate not only whole commands, such as "insert-f" for "insert-file", but also the words that make up a command, so you can just type "ins-f" for "insert-file". Or, say, "l-d-a" for "lisp-directory-apropos", which segues nicely into: Emacs Lisp Code Apropos -- "partial" partial-comp (1.04) 90-07-02 David Gillespie, <daveg@csvax.caltech.edu> tut.cis.ohio-state.edu:pub/gnu/emacs/elisp-archive/packages/partial-comp.el.Z Extended completion for the Emacs minibuffer completer (3.02) 91-05-08 Chris McConnell, <ccm@cs.cmu.edu> katmandu.mt.cs.cmu.edu:/pub/ilisp/completer.el Partial completion for commands and pathname components. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun2.075649.3512@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@cosmos.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: >Let's stop the war. I steel don't need the great features of EMACS, and >if your'e writing books of papers - EMACS is much better. I'm a >programmer. Programmers come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of preferences concerning the editors they use. What is a good editor for one programmer is a lousy editor for the next programmer. If the learning curve is large and you are not willing to put up with a large learning curve, then a highly flexible and customizable editor like GNU Emacs is not for you (unless you can talk someone else into setting it up to behave the way you want it to behave). Here at DSC we have hundreds of programmers. The editors they prefer and the ways they use them vary considerably. On one extreme, I know one programmer who, regardless of which editor he happens to be using, ONLY uses the arrow keys to move through a file. I once showed him the scroll forward command. He used it while I watched (to humor me I guess). But later on I noticed he was back using the arrow keys exclusively. His favorite way to delete text is with repeated use of the delete key, often deleting dozens of lines this way. Most programmers find it painful to watch him work. On the other extreme we have a programmer who seems to be spending most of his time customizing the editor with lots of neat functions. Many often wonder how he gets time in to do the work for which he gets paid. By far, however, most programmers want an editor that has some useful programming and editing aids built it, but they want someone ELSE to set it up and show them how it works. And once they get used to ONE editor they don't want to have to switch to another editor. And when they are forced to switch, they want someone to make the new editor behave like the old editor as much as possible. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun2.075649.3512@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@cosmos.huji.ac.il (ury segal) writes: > >Let's stop the war. I steel don't need the great features of EMACS, and >if your'e writing books of papers - EMACS is much better. I'm a >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). Ofcourse >you can write lisp-like script to make it ^G. but this is not simple >as writing "what-line". after all, Most of the time I'm thinking, not >writing, and if I have to correct erorrs, It's only 1 char or 1 func. If you don't need all the features of GNU Emacs, you might consider a simpler version, such as MicroEmacs. Furthermore, in MicroEmacs you can find out what line you're on in two keystrokes: CTRL-X = And ESC-G for "go-to-line" is no chore, either. -- Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu "In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blake
sm2@sequent.cc.hull.ac.uk (Simon Marshall) (06/04/91)
| Michael D Mellinger (melling@cs.psu.edu) writes: | In article ... datri@convex.com (Anthony A.) writes: | | >programmer. I don't want to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). | | 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. | | I get 9 too. M-x wha<SPACE>l<SPACE><RETURN>. Well *I* get 8! Try M-x wha<RET>l<RET> Can anyone beat that! As has been pointed out (back to serious discussion), once you get used to it & use Emacs' compile/grep etc interfaces, you will see why line numbers are relatively hard to get at; they're not normally necessary - they're something you can forget all about. No more "Error x at line y"!!! I do remember when I first used Emacs how I could get at my beloved line numbers, but now I needn't care... Si. _______________________________________________________________________________ Simon Marshall, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK "``La la la la la la la la la'' means I love you." EMAIL: S.Marshall@Hull.ac.uk UUCP: ..!ukc!hu-cs!sm Telephone: +44 482 465951 (office) Fax: +44 482 466666
jockc@hammer.idsila.com (Jock Cooper) (06/04/91)
In article <rbHbydl@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: In article <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. I get 9 too. M-x wha<SPACE>l<SPACE><RETURN>. You could bind that to a key if you frequently use it. I have bound C-x C-l to goto-line, and I use C-x l for count-lines-page(I don't use that often). That's always annoyed me about gnumacs as well, but I haven't taken the time to fix it. Microemacs, for example, gives you that information with the buffer-position function, which is bound by default to C-X= (two keystrokes). I believe that Unipress's does as well. It's a simply fix to rebind any key. Would you really use another editor that doesn't have an undo or autosave just because you don't like one or two key bindings in GNU Emacs? Sorry about coming in on the middle of this discussion, but I had to say that in addition to undo and autosave, I find the ability to do multiple buffer, multiple file, and multiple window editing indispensible. As a programmer, I tend to edit about 3 headers and 3 source files simultaneously. This alone makes emacs worth using. Sure it's a pain to have to write startup files to rebind keys to commonly used functions, but jeez, you only gotta do it one time. jockc@hammer.idsila.com
gregs@well.sf.ca.us (Greg Strockbine) (06/08/91)
> In article <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > > >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). I just can't resist interjecting my own biased, blunt opinion into this melee. Comparing vi to emacs makes as much sense to me as comparing more to x-windows. Quite frankly where I work those who still insist on using vi are duds. Before I moved to emacs I was a vi expert, I used to console anyone who had trouble with or complained about vi. I can still run rings around any of the vi users here. Typically the vi users here learn as little about unix as possible. Can you image using unix for 6 years and not understand how to add a target to a makefile? One vi user gave up learning emacs when he discovered he could not display line numbers. The most common complaint of vi users is that emacs is too verbose. Actually its the other way around, you'll do much more work without emacs. When they talk about verboseness they only consider cursor movement and inserting/deleting characters. And can you believe this we don't even have x-windows. I call the vi guys flat-landers. A pencil is a vi user's best friend because the info scrolls off their screen so they have to write it down. ok, now here is the kicker I composed this message with vi cause I'm not on my home system. greg strockbine