filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin; NOTE NEW MAIL ADDRESS) (06/14/89)
In article <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> lth@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Lars Thomas Hansen) writes: >Summary: Why on earth would you want WordStar? >As it turned out, programmers want a lot more. The ability to edit several >files at once, for example, is something I (now) demand from my editor. To >have several views of the same file is also practical in certain situations. The editor I use most has these capabilities. I repeat: I DO NOT USE WORDSTAR per se. The editor I use most is "TPE", a descendant of "EDWIN", by Kim Kokkonnen. I also repeat: I would rather have simplicity and the keyboard sequences and paradigms I'm used to, than complexity and power at the cost of major paradigm shifts. I further repeat that the UNIX machines I'm using are typically loaded to the point that it is crazy to even attempt running a large program such as EMACS. The "WordStar" that I use, that I am looking for, has multiple windows, can edit multiple files, has macros, undo, etc. These remain peripheral issues for me. They are cute and handy but not very important. Macros I can do through the PC I use to communicate with UNIX. Multiple edits I can do with job control, if nothing else. >You'd be amazed at the amount of trouble I go through to avoid the Turbo >editors... Look at the trouble I'm going to! I'm broadcasting my unpopular views all over the planet to try to avoid using editors I don't like. Also, you can't see it, but I'm editing this article with SideKick -- definitely a less than optimal implementation of what I want, but it doesn't clash with my mind, and it will come up over my terminal program. In article <4095@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) writes: >Having a WordStar clone on Unix would make it much easier for >novices to edit files, and I'm sure it would be an instant hit >among freely distributable editor programs. It may not have the >most ideal keyboard mapping, but it is extremely well-known and >has the advantage of using the diamond pattern for the four basic >cursor motion commands, which makes it easy to remember. I've >never met anyone who has used a computer for text processing and >not known WordStar. Substitute "microcomputer" for "computer" in the last sentence and this is probably close to correct. Obviously it doesn't have "the most ideal keyboard mapping", as this is impossible given differences in keyboards, typing styles etc. It flows well for me, a touch-typist (not of the normal school, but still a touch-typist). This is something I've heard many times: touch-typists like WordStar, others hate it. Maybe the whole question says something about where and how computer users have learned to type? In article <5339@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >BTW, now I have thrown in the towel and use Unipress EMACS on UNIX systems >which have the license, Microemacs on UNIX systems that don't, Epsilon on >a PC Clone, and (on few rare occasions) MINCE (an EMACS clone) on the >old CP/M box. Epsilon gets about 99% of the use. You use EMACS "clones" everywhere. I want to use WS "clones" everywhere. I do NOT intend to "throw in the towel". Whether there is one now, or not, when I'm done there will be a good WS "clone" EDITOR (NOT word processor) for UNIX. Even if I have to write it myself. Repeating what I'm looking for: An editor that uses WordStar-compatible keystrokes and generally acts like WordStar, as far as editing goes. I do not need or want any of WS' "word processing" features, dot commands, embedded formatting sequences, help screens, etc. Except the responses from people who also want WS, 90% of the mail I've gotten has utterly confused the issues of EDITING and IMPLEMENTATION. I've tried to say this clearly but people don't seem to pay attention. WS is the recognizable name for a whole group of editors that have entirely different implementation details, just like there are dozens of EMACS implementations, none of which (so far as I know) actually still runs as a collection of macros under TECO! Of course I don't want a slow, bulky, takes-up-half-the-screen-with-help-messages editor that writes non-ASCII files. I want something that acts like it at the basic editing level. Examples (all under MS-DOS): SideKick; Borland Turbo language editors; MicroSoft's latest Quick language editors (I'm told); "modify command" in dBASE III (sort of); QEDIT; XTC; EDWIN; TPE; etc. Further information for the participants in this discussion: I am leaving on a two-week vacation. I will return on or near July 1st. I'm told that my account at UCSC, which is a "guest account", may not exist when I return. I am asking them to forward my mail to gorn, which is not going away, if at all possible, but I don't know if that will happen. If you want to correspond with me, please use the address "filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us" or "filbo%gorn@sco.com". I have a list of some 10-15 other people who are looking for WS for UNIX. When I return I'll distribute what useful information I have (there is some, and it's building up), and possibly set up a mailing group. If no likely candidate has come up by then I will start soliciting ideas from the mailing group on what constitutes a good WS editor for UNIX. Then I'll ignore them and write what I want. Hopefully something will turn up and I won't have to do this. ;-} >Bela<
news@Clyde.Concordia.CA (USENET News System) (06/15/89)
From: smw@maxwell.Concordia.CA ( Steven M. Winikoff | ILDCA71 | c1012 | 7619) Path: maxwell!smw This may be just a tad too simple-minded -- and there's probably several obvious reasons why it won't work -- but how hard would it be to port MicroStar (source of which is freely distributed with the Turbo Pasal Editor Toolbox) to Unix? Yes, clearly the system interface is different -- so the screen and keyboard handlers would have to be rewritten... but the core of the editor should be usable as is. (It's a while since I've looked at the code for MicroStar, but I don't believe it makes heavy use of Turbo-specific features, such as strings.) I don't know offhand how much effort would be involved, but at least it would seem to be a good place to start. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Winikoff smw@maxwell.concordia.ca Software Analyst Concordia University Computer Centre voice: (514) 848-7619 Montreal, Quebec, Canada (10:00-18:00 EST)