ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T Spire) (03/20/91)
Here are some comments on what I see as the most important issues in the current discussion regarding Unix editors compared to others... (A discussion that I find to be **very healthy**, I must say, especially since those that write editors for a living are probably listening in.) >>(Anil Joshi, University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL) >> >>I think that explanation is not necessary because you might have already seen >>some of the people who worked on IBM mainframes miss not only the ISPF editor >>but ISPF itself. It is more intuitive and user friendly. I have to agree though >>that the pattern matching facilities in the base ISPF editor are not good. But >>this problem is easily solved by resorting to macros which can be written in a >>full functional language like TSO/E CLIST or REXX languages. By the way, REXX >>has quite a few powerful features for doing pattern matching, building and >>executing arbitrary statements (it has interpret instruction), and recently >>pipes etc. It's syntax also is more intuitive than the UNIX shell languages. >(Tom Christiansen, CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX) > >This is religion here. Why don't you go back to IBM where you're obviously >so much happier and stop trying to foist your religion on those already >happy and productive with UNIX? IMHO, there is much more at stake here than personal preferences (i.e., religion.) We are all in the middle of a revolution in computing services, driven by rapidly falling price/performance curves. This revolution is going to drag all those folks who are currently using IBM proprietary software into the Unix arena over the next few years. No matter what you think about these folks, they are (for the most part) mature, productive data processing professionals who are probably more interested in solving application problems than learning a new computing environment, one so different from what they are used to that they can't even get started, 'cause the editor is so radically different from what they are used to. If the guy is used to ISPF or XEDIT or REXX or whatever, he should be able to continue using it in his new environment. That will certainly ease his transition, and the fear of costly transitions is one of the current factors holding commercial accounts back from using Unix. (I'm just amazed to be saying this to a guy who works for Convex! Don't you guys get a lot of business by replacing IBM mainframes?) > ...Do you think you will somehow make the >world a better place by making them all learn this editor you keep >referencing? I don't know it, so can't make comparisons, so I'll >leave that up to someone else. But I can't believe you'd make me >more productive by making me use it instead of my highly-tuned, >integrated environment I've worked up over years of tinkering. 1. I didn't hear anybody say they were going to MAKE anybody do anything. Sounds like the suggestion is that alternatives should exist for those who would like to avail themselves of them. 2. Perhaps the guy coming from the IBM world has a highly tuned integrated environment running under SPF edit (or more likely XEDIT, which is even more flexible) which he has worked up over years of tinkering. It could hurt his productivity a whole lot to give it up and go through another couple of years of such a learning curve! (I have seen mainframe editor environments that are just as heavily customized as any you find in Unix.) 3. The fact that it has taken you years of tinkering to get your edit enviroment the way you want it indicates (at least to me) that your environment is more complex (and probably has a higher learning curve) than the referenced mainframe editors. >>I thought that we are talking about program editors here. I do agree that >>word star/word perfect are brain-dead editors. But I am talking about other >>editors (ISPF/XEDIT) which I think a lot of users of this forum do like but >>afraid to say so because they will be ridiculed of liking something from the >>big blue. I'd be interested in hearing from others on the forum about that, especially now that mainframe tools like XEDIT and REXX are becoming available in Unix, from non-blue suppliers. ========================================================================== Ed Spire email: ets@wrkgrp.com (on uunet) The Workstation Group voice: 800-228-0255 6300 River Road, Suite 700 or 708-696-4800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018 fax: 708-696-2277 Newsgroups: Comp.editors Subject: Unix vs. Mainframe editors Here are some comments on what I see as the most important issues in the current discussion regarding Unix editors compared to others... (A discussion that I find to be **very healthy**, I must say, especially since those that write editors for a living are probably listening in.) >>(Anil Joshi, University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL) >> >>I think that explanation is not necessary because you might have already seen >>some of the people who worked on IBM mainframes miss not only the ISPF editor >>but ISPF itself. It is more intuitive and user friendly. I have to agree though >>that the pattern matching facilities in the base ISPF editor are not good. But >>this problem is easily solved by resorting to macros which can be written in a >>full functional language like TSO/E CLIST or REXX languages. By the way, REXX >>has quite a few powerful features for doing pattern matching, building and >>executing arbitrary statements (it has interpret instruction), and recently >>pipes etc. It's syntax also is more intuitive than the UNIX shell languages. >(Tom Christiansen, CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX) > >This is religion here. Why don't you go back to IBM where you're obviously >so much happier and stop trying to foist your religion on those already >happy and productive with UNIX? IMHO, there is much more at stake here than personal preferences (i.e., religion.) We are all in the middle of a revolution in computing services, driven by rapidly falling price/performance curves. This revolution is going to drag all those folks who are currently using IBM proprietary software into the Unix arena over the next few years. No matter what you think about these folks, they are (for the most part) mature, productive data processing professionals who are probably more interested in solving application problems than learning a new computing environment, one so different from what they are used to that they can't even get started, 'cause the editor is so radically different from what they are used to. If the guy is used to ISPF or XEDIT or REXX or whatever, he should be able to continue using it in his new environment. That will certainly ease his transition, and the fear of costly transitions is one of the current factors holding commercial accounts back from using Unix. (I'm just amazed to be saying this to a guy who works for Convex! Don't you guys get a lot of business by replacing IBM mainframes?) > ...Do you think you will somehow make the >world a better place by making them all learn this editor you keep >referencing? I don't know it, so can't make comparisons, so I'll >leave that up to someone else. But I can't believe you'd make me >more productive by making me use it instead of my highly-tuned, >integrated environment I've worked up over years of tinkering. 1. I didn't hear anybody say they were going to MAKE anybody do anything. Sounds like the suggestion is that alternatives should exist for those who would like to avail themselves of them. 2. Perhaps the guy coming from the IBM world has a highly tuned integrated environment running under SPF edit (or more likely XEDIT, which is even more flexible) which he has worked up over years of tinkering. It could hurt his productivity a whole lot to give it up and go through another couple of years of such a learning curve! (I have seen mainframe editor environments that are just as heavily customized as any you find in Unix.) 3. The fact that it has taken you years of tinkering to get your edit enviroment the way you want it indicates (at least to me) that your environment is more complex (and probably has a higher learning curve) than the referenced mainframe editors. >>I thought that we are talking about program editors here. I do agree that >>word star/word perfect are brain-dead editors. But I am talking about other >>editors (ISPF/XEDIT) which I think a lot of users of this forum do like but >>afraid to say so because they will be ridiculed of liking something from the >>big blue. I'd be interested in hearing from others on the forum about that, especially now that mainframe tools like XEDIT and REXX are becoming available in Unix, from non-blue suppliers. ========================================================================== Ed Spire email: ets@wrkgrp.com (on uunet) The Workstation Group voice: 800-228-0255 6300 River Road, Suite 700 or 708-696-4800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018 fax: 708-696-2277
DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) (03/20/91)
As an IBM mainframe programmer for ten years (and unix-literate, too!), I'm one of the people with a 'significantly customized' editor environ- ment, and I probably tweak the configuration at least once or twice a month. I dealt with the original EDIT (picture 'ed' with slightly- more-meaningful commands), EDGAR (full screen, nice, but not as good as XEDIT, and five+ releases of XEDIT, including three with REXX. In addition, I run KEDIT (an XEDIT work-alike) on MSDOS. XEDIT is quite customizable - I've seen it as the display-manager for news-readers (both local and NNTP), data entry panels, the "guts" of sophisticated mail-handling software, and probably almost as many uses as you could find for GNU Emacs. Until my job moves to a primarily-unix environment (not likely to happen - they're happy with me as an IBM systems programmer), I'll probably choose XEDIT over any editor currently available for Unix. And until they get me a terminal that talks ASCII at a decent speed (as opposed to a 3270 or a 2400-baud modem-connected line), it'll probably stay that way. BTW, has anyone written XEDIT-like bindings or configuration for EMACS ? Doug -- Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, doug@ysub.bitnet Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555 doug@ysub.ysu.edu Who said life was fair ?
lewis@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Pierre Lewis) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.210035.2232@wrkgrp.COM>, ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T Spire) writes: |> (I have seen mainframe editor environments that are just as heavily |> customized as any you find in Unix.) Mine is, with loads of specialized REXX macros. And I, for one, have always liked XEDIT and think it's certainly a very powerful editor (it can sort a file much faster that sort(1) on a Sparc). Even today (after a few years in the Unix world), if I had to chose a single editor (to go to that famous desert island), it would probably be XEDIT (surely over vi or emacs). Granted, for someone with no mainframe experience, it's something of a shock. But for a person migrating from IBM mainframe, it will be natural. -- Pierre LEWIS Internet: bnrmtl!lewis@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU Lubarsky's law of cybernetic entomology: There is always one more bug!
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar20.140959.2939@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> bnrmtl!lewis@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu writes: > <...stuff deleted...> > >And I, for one, have always liked XEDIT and think it's certainly a very >powerful editor (it can sort a file much faster that sort(1) on a Sparc). HOLD EVERYTHING!!!! This comment is completely out of context!!! (not just in this reprint but in the original posting...) I, too, am a mainframe editor bigot, although ISPF was my first preference with XEDIT a very close second, since I had to use both TSO and VM in my previous life and ISPF was available in BOTH environments (uhoh, I can hear it now, this is the same reason that the vi bigots give for using vi... it is available on ALL unix systems)... Anyway, I want to know what you are saying here... That XEDIT (running on a mainframe, say a 3090 or something along that order) can sort faster than a Sparc???? I WOULD HOPE SO!!!! Ignoring all the MipsHype that suggests a "15Mips" Sparcstation 1+ might be able to outcompute a "3Mips" 3033 (I sincerely doubt it... mips != mips in most cases), anyway, ignoring all that hype, a mainframe should run circles around a Sparc... So what does that prove??? On the other hand, are you comparing an XEDIT that runs on the Sparc (better yet, with a REXX that goes with it?) If so, please let me know where I can get one too... I think I may have found heaven! Jon
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar20.140959.2939@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> bnrmtl!lewis@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu writes: >In article <1991Mar19.210035.2232@wrkgrp.COM>, ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T >Spire) writes: >And I, for one, have always liked XEDIT and think it's certainly a very >powerful editor (it can sort a file much faster that sort(1) on a Sparc). Is that a function of the software or the hardware? The Sparc probably costs less to buy than the IBM does to rent for a month. I would expect that the sparc may not be as fast. The Unix sort command uses a very quick algorithm. I have seen people wait hours (no exaggeration) for PC Word Processor programs to sort a file that the Unix sort command, running on the *same* computer can do in a couple seconds. David
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (03/21/91)
In article <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>, jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: |> I, too, am a mainframe editor bigot, although ISPF was my first preference |> with XEDIT a very close second, since I had to use both TSO and VM in |> my previous life and ISPF was available in BOTH environments (uhoh, I |> can hear it now, this is the same reason that the vi bigots give for |> using vi... it is available on ALL unix systems)... Just curious: what makes a "mainframe editor"? Since both "vi" and "emacs" also run on "mainframes", just the ability to run on a mainframe cannot be enough to be blessed with the predicate "mainframe editor". What features do ISPF and XEDIT give you that are so sorely lacking in Emacs?
lewis@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Pierre Lewis) (03/21/91)
In article <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>, jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: |> >And I, for one, have always liked XEDIT and think it's certainly a very |> >powerful editor (it can sort a file much faster that sort(1) on a Sparc). |> |> HOLD EVERYTHING!!!! |> |> This comment is completely out of context!!! (not just in this reprint |> but in the original posting...) I agree, it is completely out of context, but it really surprised me recently and I couldn't refrain from mentioning this anecdote. Maybe I should have put more brackets around it! Of course the 3090 is much faster that the Sparc, but then there were at the time hundreds of users on it, and only one user on the Sparc. And this was an editor sort as opposed to a specialized tool on Unix. It was more than 10 times as fast. I still think it's not bad even if completely out of context (sort not even a basic editor feature). -- Pierre LEWIS Internet: bnrmtl!lewis@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU
newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Bill Newman) (03/21/91)
In article <14222@life.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu writes: >In article <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>, jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >|> I, too, am a mainframe editor bigot, although ISPF was my first preference >|> with XEDIT a very close second, since I had to use both TSO and VM in >|> my previous life and ISPF was available in BOTH environments (uhoh, I >|> can hear it now, this is the same reason that the vi bigots give for >|> using vi... it is available on ALL unix systems)... > >Just curious: what makes a "mainframe editor"? Since both "vi" and >"emacs" also run on "mainframes", just the ability to run on a mainframe >cannot be enough to be blessed with the predicate "mainframe editor". > >What features do ISPF and XEDIT give you that are so sorely lacking >in Emacs? I'd like it if some mainframers could explain what they like about XEDIT. My editor experience has been TECO then DEC visual editors on PDP-11's and VAXes, then WordStar on CP/M, then vi and jove (Jonathan's Own Version of EMACS), on Unix, then XEDIT under CMS and WriteNow for the Mac. I'm glad I have a visual editor, of course, so TECO is at the bottom of my list of preferences, but XEDIT is pretty near. I know people who are so used to XEDIT they don't pull out their hair any more, but I have trouble understanding how anyone could prefer it. How can you prefer an editor that smiles when you run the cursor off the top of the screen because it looks forward to seeing the expression on your face when it doesn't move the text down, it just wraps the cursor back onto the bottom of the page? And it uses up lots of the screen for its command area and menus and stuff, instead of just getting the hell out of the way so you can see as much of your work as possible. Maybe it's customizable, but I don't want to have to dig through a manual larger than that for csh to find out how to make it act like a reasonable editor. Are there design decisions made in emacs, edt, or even WordStar that strike XEDIT users as obviously wrong? Or is the problem that they don't implement the XEDIT command language? Bill Newman newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu
marc@sequoia.cray.com (Marc Bouron) (03/21/91)
In article <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>, jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: |> |> On the other hand, are you comparing an XEDIT that runs on the Sparc |> (better yet, with a REXX that goes with it?) If so, please let me |> know where I can get one too... I think I may have found heaven! |> |> Jon |> I just happen to have received some brochures through the post from a company in the UK who had read a posting of mine about an ISPF editor for UNIX. They market a couple of products called uniXEDIT and uniREXX in Europe for a bunch called The Workstation Group in Chicago. There are versions for Suns and SPARCstations, but note that these are commercial products and cost money. They quote prices of 325 pounds sterling for a single workstation licence - this excludes taxes. Might this information be any use to you? BTW, the company is the UK is called Interlogic, and are based in Gerrards Cross (Bucks). Note that I have nothing to do with either company, and that I am only passing on this information. [M][a][r][c] ################################################################################ # # marc@sequoia.cray.com # . . # # Marc CR Bouron # M.Bouron@cray.co.uk (ARPA) # _|\ /|_ # # Cray Research (UK) Ltd. # M.Bouron@crayuk.uucp (DOMAIN) # (_|_V_|_) # # +44 344 485971 x2208 # M.Bouron@uk.co.cray (JANET) # | | # # # ...!ukc!crayuk!M.Bouron (UUCP) # # ################################################################################
john@sco.COM (John R. MacMillan) (03/26/91)
|>What features do ISPF and XEDIT give you that are so sorely lacking |>in Emacs? | |I'd like it if some mainframers could explain what they like about XEDIT. In another life I used XEDIT a lot, so I'll take a shot at this. It could get a bit off topic in places. Much of this also applies to ISPF. First, you have to get used to the idea of working on a block mode terminal. When you press the up arrow, and the editor doesn't scroll, it's because the editor never sees the keystroke. Whether terminals should work this way or not is another debate. Now, what I liked: XEDIT was a programmable editing/display engine. It was flexible enough in this regard that you could use it for full-screen applications, either on its own or within ``shell'' scripts. Many of the tools I used regularly were XEDIT programs. And they didn't necessarily look like the editor. I know emacs can do this to some extent, but I don't think it allows you to set attributes within the file being edited (video attributes like reverse, protected, etc.), or allows enough control over exactly what the display looks like (I could be wrong on this, it's been a while since I stopped using emacs. I also found emacs to be rather slow to start up, perhaps because its design philosophy assumes that you typically didn't enter the editor often; this discourages its use as an editing tool. The other thing I liked was not strictly speaking an editor feature. The editor command language was the same as the system command interpreter (EXEC then EXEC2 then REXX (actually, then REX then REXX)) so I didn't have to switch languages around. This is where I start to digress. One of the things I love about UNIX is that it's easy to write and use your own tools. One of the things I liked about various mainframe environments I've used (mostly CMS and NOS/VE) is the way the tools are so well integrated. In NOS/VE the debugger was programmable in the system command language. I think UNIX would benefit from a standardized method for tools being able to communicate and provide services to other tools, so that dbx or your editor could say, ``Hey, /bin/sh, handle this script for me, but instead of trying to exec the commands, just give them back to me so that if I understand them I can execute them.''
ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T Spire) (03/27/91)
>In article <1991Mar20.140959.2939@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> bnrmtl!lewis@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu writes: >>Pierre LEWIS said... >> >>And I, for one, have always liked XEDIT and think it's certainly a very >>powerful editor (it can sort a file much faster that sort(1) on a Sparc). > >Anyway, I want to know what you are saying here... That XEDIT (running >on a mainframe, say a 3090 or something along that order) can sort >faster than a Sparc???? I WOULD HOPE SO!!!! Ignoring all the MipsHype >that suggests a "15Mips" Sparcstation 1+ might be able to outcompute >a "3Mips" 3033 (I sincerely doubt it... mips != mips in most cases), >anyway, ignoring all that hype, a mainframe should run circles around >a Sparc... So what does that prove??? Trivial comparison, seive for primes up to 1000: IBM 4361-5 (1.5 MIPS) 6 seconds IBM RS/6000 (27 MIPS) 2 seconds. That would make one million 370 instructions about the same as six million IBM RISC instructions (assuming the two version of REXX are somewhat similar in efficiency). So a 3 MIPS 3033 would be about the same as a 30 MIPS RISC machine (?) Might be possible... It's still a whole bunch cheaper! Anyway, so maybe CMS XEDIT has a great sort algorithm (or is it that CMS SORT uses a crummy one? Comparing Unix XEDIT SORT performance to CMS XEDIT SORT performance, I suspect it's the former), "SO WHAT?" This is a minor, little used feature of an editor.