eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) (01/25/91)
HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me! its cheap, small, powerfull, and whats more YOU NEVER LEARN ALL IT CAN DO. Emacs, ugh a trap I fell into on a unix system, not knowing the really strange control-x stuff, I logged into another terminal and killed myself off...... At least MEmacs has menus.... PAY FOR AN EDITOR? you pay for a word processor, I want my editor small. This flame brought on by repeated worthless comments by huge numbers of people, this opinion is not shard by anyone, including the author, who recently learned that he was using Z, a part of the MANX developement package, much to his surprise. :->
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (01/26/91)
In article <1991Jan25.000005.23489@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) writes: >HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me! >its cheap, small, powerfull, and whats more You get real. GnuEmacs rules. Once the port is done, and I have a jillion megs of ram or so, I'll be in editor heaven. >YOU NEVER LEARN ALL [VI] CAN DO. Yeah, well. >Emacs, ugh a trap I fell into on a unix system, not knowing >the really strange control-x stuff, I logged into another terminal >and killed myself off...... The control/x stuff was sent down from God. Now it's hard-coded into my fingers. I wouldn't learn vi on a bet. >At least MEmacs has menus.... > >PAY FOR AN EDITOR? you pay for a word processor, I want my >editor small. Hey! Your raising 3 different issues hear, in seemingly random fashion. 1. Menus - personally, when I'm typing in text, I don't want to bother with the mouse. 2. Price - GnuEmacs is *free*. 3. Size - Oh, well. Somebody really ought to tattoo "All the world's not a Un*x" on every FSF terminal, computer, and manual. Not to mention "not everyone has virtual memory with gigabytes of swap space!" >This flame brought on by repeated worthless comments by huge >numbers of people, this opinion is not shard by anyone, including >the author, who recently learned that he was using Z, a part of the >MANX developement package, much to his surprise. :-> I like the comments I've been seeing about editors here. And from what I've heard, if you mistook Z for a vi, you're spammed. *** Please insert ":-)" as required for lowering of blood pressure! *** All errors, mistakes, and misinformation herin are due to this messages passing through an alternate universe. ;-} Dave Schaumann | And then -- what then? Then, future... dave@cs.arizona.edu | -Weather Report
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) (01/26/91)
eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) writes: >PAY FOR AN EDITOR? you pay for a word processor, I want my >editor small. What do you think of AZ? That's a nice powerful fully-amiga-ized txeditor that is quite small. Personally, I like UEdit. It's a very good 'programmable' editor, and is really easy to use. How does it compare to CED? (other than one is shareware and the other is real-ware...) :) | ///| a.k.a. NECR0SIS faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu -or- | | \\\///_| faheyr@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | | \XX/ | M I G A "'Ere long done do does did..." - The Smiths | | "...life is seen through the eyes of a dog..." - Skinny Puppy |
ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) (01/26/91)
> HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me!
You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT.
Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program
that writes them sequentially to disk.
Mike Shapiro
ms0p@andrew.cmu.edu
I don't live in fantasy; I only work there.t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) (01/27/91)
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: >In article <1991Jan25.000005.23489@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) writes: >>HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me! >>its cheap, small, powerfull, and whats more >You get real. GnuEmacs rules. Once the port is done, and I have a jillion >megs of ram or so, I'll be in editor heaven. I agree, GnuEmacs rules. That's what I use on my Unix account, and I use one of those millions of beta versions that are floating around. My only complaint is that I don't have a jillion megs of ram to use up with an editor. If I wanted a word processor, I'd load up Excellence. I just want something that edits source code, and uses the same commands that I'm used to on the Unix. >The control/x stuff was sent down from God. Now it's hard-coded into my >fingers. I wouldn't learn vi on a bet. The commands from any editor would seem to be sent from God once you get used to them. Its just a matter of what you want to learn. Emacs at least has "windows", and lets you use the cursor keys without having to enter "command mode". I will say one good thing for vi, after I learned that, the keys didn't change for Nethack, but I still only use it when I have to. -- Matt Ranney t22918@ursa.calvin.edu
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (01/27/91)
In article <t22918.664916376@ursa> t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) writes: Hi, Matt. >dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > >I agree, GnuEmacs rules. That's what I use on my Unix account, and I use one >of those millions of beta versions that are floating around. My only complaint >is that I don't have a jillion megs of ram to use up with an editor. If I >wanted a word processor, I'd load up Excellence. I just want something that >edits source code, and uses the same commands that I'm used to on the Unix. > I like CygnusEd Pro, and then GNU-Emacs under X, AZ, and GNU-Emacs over the modem. My main complain with AZ is it has no internal language. >>The control/x stuff was sent down from God. Now it's hard-coded into my >>fingers. I wouldn't learn vi on a bet. > >The commands from any editor would seem to be sent from God once you get >used to them. Its just a matter of what you want to learn. Emacs at least >has "windows", and lets you use the cursor keys without having to enter >"command mode". > GNU-Emacs has "windows"? Bullshit. It has real windows if you use it under X-Windows. >I will say one good thing for vi, after I learned that, the keys didn't change >for Nethack, but I still only use it when I have to. vi sucks on Saddam Hussein. >-- >Matt Ranney >t22918@ursa.calvin.edu > -- // Joseph Hillenburg, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group \X/ joseph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@ai.mit.edu "Only Apple could slow down a 68030 chip" --Computer Shopper
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (01/27/91)
In article <4bcMrzy00awG0BdkYQ@andrew.cmu.edu> ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: [...] >You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. >Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program >that writes them sequentially to disk. [...] What a wimp! You have to type ASCII values???? Real Amiga programmers type the binary bits directly onto the disk in real time as it spins ... -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (01/27/91)
In article <1991Jan26.215740.21010@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <4bcMrzy00awG0BdkYQ@andrew.cmu.edu> ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: > [...] >>You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. >>Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program >>that writes them sequentially to disk. > [...] >What a wimp! You have to type ASCII values???? > >Real Amiga programmers type the binary bits directly onto the disk in real >time as it spins ... Yeh, I got sick of trying to decide between editors, so this is how I'm writing my Anthro dissertation... >--Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. > Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- > V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com Dave Hopper | /// Yesterday, CS. | Academic Info Resources | __ /// Today, Anthropology. | Mac & UNIX Sys-Support bard@jessica. | \\\/// | "Somebody get me a job Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Tomorrow: napping in gutters.| with a computer I LIKE"
t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) (01/27/91)
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) writes: >>used to them. Its just a matter of what you want to learn. Emacs at least >>has "windows", and lets you use the cursor keys without having to enter >>"command mode". >> >GNU-Emacs has "windows"? Bullshit. It has real windows if you use it under >X-Windows. Well, it's got more of a window than our friend, vi. That was the reason I put it in quotes. The only time I really use them is for compilation and correcting errors. Under X-Windows, are they all resizable? _That_ would be pretty cool. I've decided that there is a certain breed of people that like to use vi, around this campus, anyway. These are the people that have IBMs, and wouldn't trade that nifty command line interface for anything. They like to get into nitty gritty system details even though there are already preset routines that do that for them. One of these types, my friend, was reading this over my shoulder and gave this defense of his editor: "Emacs is for kids who want to program in Pascal and have 40 character variable names with lots of capitals in them. Vi is faster and more powerful without all this 'control-x' stuff. Why can't emacs use single key commands?" To each his own, I guess. -- Matt Ranney t22918@ursa.calvin.edu
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (01/27/91)
Matt Raney writes this on comp.sys.amiga.advocacy (The !!! FLAME !!! group)
MR>used to them. Its just a matter of what you want to learn. Emacs at least
MR>has "windows", and lets you use the cursor keys without having to enter
MR>"command mode".
Me>GNU-Emacs has "windows"? Bullshit. It has real windows if you use it under
Me>X-Windows.
MR>Well, it's got more of a window than our friend, vi. That was the reason I
MR>put it in quotes. The only time I really use them is for compilation and
MR>correcting errors. Under X-Windows, are they all resizable? _That_ would be
MR>pretty cool.
Yes, the windows are resizable, and pulldown menus, looks like your average
Amiga-tized editor, except it's as slow as the postal service. (Well, not
quite :)
MR>[...]
MR> One of these types, my friend, was
MR>reading this over my shoulder and gave this defense of his editor:
MR>"Emacs is for kids who want to program in Pascal and have 40 character
MR>variable names with lots of capitals in them. Vi is faster and more powerful
MR>without all this 'control-x' stuff. Why cant emacs use single key commands?"
Because Emacs has any command you need. Try sticking all the Emacs
capabilites into vi and try to keep single-key commands in...
MR>To each his own, I guess.
MR>--
MR>Matt Ranney
MR>t22918@ursa.calvin.edu
--
// Joseph Hillenburg, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group
\X/ joseph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@ai.mit.edu
"Only Apple could slow down a 68030 chip" --Computer Shopperandrew@cuenews.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) (01/28/91)
In <4bcMrzy00awG0BdkYQ@andrew.cmu.edu> ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: >> HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me! > >You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. >Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program >that writes them sequentially to disk. ASCII? What the heck is that? I usually just "copy * >executable". Saves a lot on all that compilation time. ;-) -- Andrew Folkins ...!{pembina.cs.UAlberta.CA,alberta}!edm!cuenews!andrew Newsfeed for the Amiga SIG of the Commodore Users of Edmonton (AmiCUE) "Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing." -- Stan Kelly-Bootle, _Computer Language_, Oct 90
eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) (01/28/91)
In article <737@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > >You get real. GnuEmacs rules. Once the port is done, and I have a jillion >megs of ram or so, I'll be in editor heaven. > >The control/x stuff was sent down from God. Now it's hard-coded into my >fingers. I wouldn't learn vi on a bet. > >3. Size - Oh, well. Somebody really ought to tattoo "All the world's not > a Un*x" on every FSF terminal, computer, and manual. Not to > mention "not everyone has virtual memory with gigabytes of > swap space!" > >heard, if you mistook Z for a vi, you're spammed. > >*** Please insert ":-)" as required for lowering of blood pressure! *** >All errors, mistakes, and misinformation herin are due to this messages >passing through an alternate universe. ;-} > >dave@cs.arizona.edu | -Weather Report :numerous comments deleted (mostly my own), and other junk too!: Not to continue this subject :-> but I was attempting to show that an editor is really something you grow into, From vi, the c64, appleII line editors, emacs. Personally I love vi cause I have got it everywhere, unix, pc, and amiga. I hate TruboC's editors, and emacs too big for my taste. Well, Z does seem to have some of the : arguments missing, I miss it when I wanna shift some code over. Will have to see about Stevie. I never take anything from a computer seriously, I am a programmer. #include <yo/std.disclaimer> Eric Wampner eww@heretic.engr.ucf.edu
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (01/29/91)
In article <t22918.664939482@ursa> t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) writes: [...] >Well, it's got more of a window than our friend, vi. That was the reason I >put it in quotes. The only time I really use them is for compilation and >correcting errors. Under X-Windows, are they all resizable? _That_ would be >pretty cool. [...] The current X-windows part of GNU Emacs is nice. It comes up in it's own window which has all the hooks and gadgets attached that your particular environment is set up to support. In other words, yes. Using the emacsclient server you can keep an emacs window alive at all times, and each invocation of emacs will route the file into the existing emacs window. Whether you choose to use this feature depends on whether you prefer for your editor windows to proliferate. One advantage of GNU Emacs in X is that cursor positioning is mouse- controlled (if set up properly). You can also paste in data that was cut from another window. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do is to cut from a GNU Emacs window to paste into a TTY window. It works great going the other direction. For now I just do a 'less' on the file if I want to cut from it. A little awkward at times, but it gets the job done. BTW - the main difference that divides emacs users from vi users is the edit-mode vs insert-mode of vi, which is quite foreign to emacs users. Emacs users hate being forced to remember to switch modes when they make a mistake that needs to be corrected. The most common editing action I perform is a single character mistake which I backspace over and continue typing. In vi this requires you to (after the mistake) hit the <ESC> to switch modes, then type 'x' to delete the character, then type 'a' to go back into insert mode at the end of the line. All you need to do in emacs is hit the backspace key to accomplish the same thing. Sure vi has single char commands. But interspersed with them is all the mode-switch commands that just aren't needed at all in emacs. In addition, once you have an X-term you tend to position your cursor 99% of the time using the mouse. So you don't need any <ctl> commands for cursor positioning. Cutting text in emacs means 'point-and-click', 'ctl-space' (mark), 'point-and- click', 'ctl-w' (cut). Pasting means 'point-and-click', 'ctl-y' (paste). Since vi doesn't have any X hooks, you would spend all your time in vi getting your cursor positioned at the point of paste-buffer insertion (j-j-j-j-j-j-j- l-l-l-l-l, etc). I can't believe I just fired a salvo in an editor war ;^). I know there's a reason why I never post these things, but something about this newsgroup has affected my brain and I can't seem to remember the reasons why one should never argue about editors... -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.165534.110@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: [some stuff deleted...] > I backspace over and continue typing. In vi this requires you to (after the > mistake) hit the <ESC> to switch modes, then type 'x' to delete the character, > then type 'a' to go back into insert mode at the end of the line. All you > need to do in emacs is hit the backspace key to accomplish the same thing. This is not true at all. I use the backspace key in vi all the time to go back and correct a typo. You don't have to use <ESC> 'x' 'a' all the time. Just to make sure, let me try the backspace key, yep, worked just fine. I have never used emacs, so I won't get in this argument, I'll just say that different people are comfortable with different ways of doing things. I like 'vi'. I know how to use it. It does what _I_ want. > -- > _. > --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. > Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- > V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com RichBrack -- { the itchman cometh /-/ _ i don't want to be your angel } { itch@cbnews.att.com /-/ _|_|_ i want to be your witch! } { att!cbnews!itch \-\/-/ ( * )tch -yello } { \/\/ /^\ }
hinker@acl.lanl.gov (Paul J. Hinker) (01/29/91)
. In article <mumble> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: . >In article <rubarb> ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: . > [...] . >>You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. . >>Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program . >>that writes them sequentially to disk. . > [...] . >What a wimp! You have to type ASCII values???? . > . >Real Amiga programmers type the binary bits directly onto the disk in real . >time as it spins ... . Ha! You guys are patty cakes. _I_ use a magnetized pin to enter the the binary bits to the disk head as it spins. [Insert :-) as necessary] . . >--Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. . > Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- . > V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com . . Dave Hopper | /// Yesterday, CS. | Academic Info Resources . | __ /// Today, Anthropology. | Mac & UNIX Sys-Support . bard@jessica. | \\\/// | "Somebody get me a job . Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Tomorrow: napping in gutters.| with a computer I LIKE" Paul Hinker hinker@acl.lanl.gov /// If it works, it's not state-of-the-art MS B287 505-665-4531 /// --Hansen's Law Los Alamos National Labs ACL \\\/// All our stuff is broke Los Alamos, NM 87545 \XX/ --Forslund's Corollary -- Paul Hinker hinker@acl.lanl.gov /// If it works, it's not state-of-the-art MS B287 505-665-4531 /// --Hansen's Law Los Alamos National Labs ACL \\\/// All our stuff is broke Los Alamos, NM 87545 \XX/ --Forslund's Corollary
djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (01/29/91)
In article <1500@cuenews.UUCP> andrew@cuenews.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes: >In <4bcMrzy00awG0BdkYQ@andrew.cmu.edu> ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: >>> HEY GUYS, GET REAL, VI is the only editor for me! >> >>You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. >>Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program >>that writes them sequentially to disk. > >ASCII? What the heck is that? I usually just "copy * >executable". >Saves a lot on all that compilation time. ;-) Yeah, I tried that once. When I wasn't looking the cat pressed a key and I didn't notice. So when I ran the program, the keyboard locked up. No problem, I just ran romwack, patched up the program, and back to normal. Seriously now, typing programs in is too much of a waste of time. Right now I am practicing singing into the modem to edit programs. 300bd isn't too bad, but 1200 makes me hoarse. -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.201856.7624@cbnews.att.com> itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) writes: >In article <1991Jan28.165534.110@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >[some stuff deleted...] >> I backspace over and continue typing. In vi this requires you to (after the >> mistake) hit the <ESC> to switch modes, then type 'x' to delete the character, >> then type 'a' to go back into insert mode at the end of the line. All you >> need to do in emacs is hit the backspace key to accomplish the same thing. > >This is not true at all. I use the backspace key in vi all the time >to go back and correct a typo. You don't have to use <ESC> 'x' 'a' all >the time. Just to make sure, let me try the backspace key, yep, worked [...] So THAT'S the reason I don't get in these discussions!!! ;^) Actually I just tried this and it does work as Richard stated. However, I stand by my assertion that it is just as inefficient to have to switch modes for [most] editing and switch again for text insertion, as it is to have to hold down a <CTL> key for editing commands in emacs. Of course the ideal would be a dedicated keypad like in the VAX keypad editor. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (01/29/91)
In article <HINKER.91Jan28141312@cub_2.acl.lanl.gov> hinker@acl.lanl.gov writes: > Ha! You guys are patty cakes. _I_ use a magnetized pin to enter the the >binary bits to the disk head as it spins. [Insert :-) as necessary] You use a DISK?!? Talk about wimpiness! I just have a BARE WIRE attached to the floppy I/O port, and I send 1's and 0's DIRECTLY to memory using a 9-volt BATTERY! Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) (01/29/91)
In article <7436@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: > You use a DISK?!? Talk about wimpiness! I just have a BARE WIRE >attached to the floppy I/O port, and I send 1's and 0's DIRECTLY to memory >using a 9-volt BATTERY! When are you going to grow up? The only way to really get full use of a computer is to magnetically alter memory through willpower. And to display data, I sprinkle iron filings on the chips. -- ========================================================================= Eduardo Horvath eeh@btr.com ..!{decwrl,mips,fernwood}!btr!eeh "Trust me, I am cognizant of what I am doing." - Hammeroid
kpicott@alias.UUCP (Socrates) (01/29/91)
In <1991Jan28.201856.7624@cbnews.att.com> itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) writes: >This is not true at all. I use the backspace key in vi all the time >to go back and correct a typo. You don't have to use <ESC> 'x' 'a' all >the time. Just to make sure, let me try the backspace key, yep, worked >just fine. I have never used emacs, so I won't get in this argument, >I'll just say that different people are comfortable with different ways >of doing things. I like 'vi'. I know how to use it. It does what _I_ >want. I thought so too, until I started using the VI clones available for the Amiga. The VI I use at work does what _I_ want. VI clones at home do what _they_ are capable of. I haven't seen one yet that handles my most used function, :map. This function makes up for 99% of the programmability of Emacs and it's why I never switched over (too much work for an extra 1%). Any VI users out there find an Amiga version that is *fully* operational? -- Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu Alias Research Inc. 110 Richmond St. E. Toronto, Ontario... M5C 1P1 (416) 362-8558 x336
ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) (01/29/91)
> What a wimp! You have to type ASCII values???? > Real Amiga programmers type the binary bits directly onto the disk in real > time as it spins ... Well, that was just a metaphor. Actually, I wave refrigerator magnets around in hopes of accidentally altering the disk's magnetic configuration such that my textfile appears as I wanted it. Mike Shapiro ms0p@andrew.cmu.edu I don't live in fantasy; I only work there.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/29/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > I backspace over and continue typing. In vi this requires you to > (after the mistake) hit the <ESC> to switch modes, then type 'x' to > delete the character, then type 'a' to go back into insert mode at the > end of the line. All you need to do in emacs is hit the backspace key > to accomplish the same thing. itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) writes: > This is not true at all. I use the backspace key in vi all the time to > go back and correct a typo. You don't have to use <ESC> 'x' 'a' all > the time. Just to make sure, let me try the backspace key, yep, worked swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > So THAT'S the reason I don't get in these discussions!!! ;^) > Actually I just tried this and it does work as Richard stated. Well, you had the right idea, but the wrong example; you just want to compare fixing up an error far enough back that you don't want to type all the stuff between over again. In emacs, this is: mark current spot navigate to error remove error with backspace type correction return to mark while in vi, it is: change mode to control mode mark current spot navigate to error remove error with "x" \ change mode to insert mode >-- these can sometimes be replaced by: type correction / change mode to substitute mode change mode to control mode type correction return to mark change mode to insert mode which is what emacs users don't like about vi, while what vi users don't like about emacs is the more primitive navigation tools. Of course, if you have an emacs point and shoot mouse interface, you are even further ahead of the game, presuming you like to use a mouse while editing (I hate it). > However, I stand by my assertion that it is just as inefficient to > have to switch modes for [most] editing and switch again for text > insertion, as it is to have to hold down a <CTL> key for editing > commands in emacs. Oh, probably a lot worse, though emacs users tend to be able to stand supported by their left pinky alone after a while. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (01/30/91)
hinker@acl.lanl.gov (Paul J. Hinker) writes: < >swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: < >>ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: < >>>You're all saps. ED from WorkBench 1.0 rules. Better yet, EDIT. < >>>Actually, I don't use editors. I just type ASCII values into a program < >>>that writes them sequentially to disk. < >> < >>What a wimp! You have to type ASCII values???? < >>Real Amiga programmers type the binary bits directly onto the disk in real < >>time as it spins ... < < Ha! You guys are patty cakes. _I_ use a magnetized pin to enter the the < binary bits to the disk head as it spins. [Insert :-) as necessary] Sigh... I had hoped to stay out of this... Nahhhh! OK boys, everyone knows that REAL programmers punch their binary code directly onto paper tape (with a nail), then load that through a home-made paper tape reader. Oh, by the way... :-) Regards, Chris -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!
itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan28.045740.3509@osceola.cs.ucf.edu>, eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) writes: > > Personally I love vi cause I have got it everywhere, unix, pc, and amiga. > I hate TruboC's editors, and emacs too big for my taste. > > Well, Z does seem to have some of the : arguments missing, I miss it when > I wanna shift some code over. Will have to see about Stevie. > > I never take anything from a computer seriously, I am a programmer. > #include <yo/std.disclaimer> > Eric Wampner > eww@heretic.engr.ucf.edu What vi are you using on the amiga? I would like to find something better than Stevie. RichBrack -- { the itchman cometh /-/ _ i don't want to be your angel } { itch@cbnews.att.com /-/ _|_|_ i want to be your witch! } { att!cbnews!itch \-\/-/ ( * )tch -yello } { \/\/ /^\ }
cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) (01/30/91)
You are all wimps. I use pencil and paper. :-) Be seeing you, Brendon Wyber Computer Services Centre, b.wyber@csc.canterbury.ac.nz University of Canterbury, New Zealand. "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) (01/31/91)
Well, I guess I started this mess, but I always thought that wars should be fought with jokes, makes less mess. By the way, nobody has convinced me, I STILL am using vi, on a Televideo 910 hooked to a Gould (now they say Encore) running BSD4.3 If I want Windows, <L-A> <ESC> And pow, theres Matt to gives me one right away, except when I had KS20 running (using Zkick), then it didn't work :-> My friend here (read unix guru) uses both, almost constantly. Of course his AppleII drive once gave out, and he type his Terminal program in assembly in for whole months at a time every time he turned it on. Oh well, I don't think you can do that thing with a nine-volt battery, I would think it would be either +-12V, or +5V, right? Eric Wampner std.disclaimer->"Nobody cares, right?" eww@heretic.engr.ucf.edu
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (01/31/91)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
<
< Well, you had the right idea, but the wrong example; you just want to
< compare fixing up an error far enough back that you don't want to type
< all the stuff between over again.
<
< In emacs, this is:
<
< mark current spot
< navigate to error
< remove error with backspace
< type correction
< return to mark
<
< while in vi, it is:
<
< change mode to control mode
< mark current spot
< navigate to error
< remove error with "x" \
< change mode to insert mode >-- these can sometimes be replaced by:
< type correction / change mode to substitute mode
< change mode to control mode type correction
< return to mark
< change mode to insert mode
This is not very accurate. For me, the three steps you stated could
sometimes be combined are ALWAYS combined, and neverdoes it take more
than 3 keystrokes to delete the offending text and begin insert mode.
Admittedly, emacs users don't have the 'change to control/insert mode'
step, but this is only a single, unmodified (unshifted, un'meta'ed)
keystroke.
< which is what emacs users don't like about vi, while what vi users
< don't like about emacs is the more primitive navigation tools. Of
< course, if you have an emacs point and shoot mouse interface, you
< are even further ahead of the game, presuming you like to use a mouse
< while editing (I hate it).
Actually, a well-implemented mouse interface for an editor can be
quite nice. I like the ability to drag-select a block of offending
text, and simply start typing, having the new text replace the entire
selected block.
< > However, I stand by my assertion that it is just as inefficient to
< > have to switch modes for [most] editing and switch again for text
< > insertion, as it is to have to hold down a <CTL> key for editing
< > commands in emacs.
This is (again) a matter of personal taste and style. Having been
a vi user for seven years, I find that I am quite proficient and
pleased with the performance it provides. I think it would behoove
us all to remember that editors are TOOLS, not RELIGIONS. Use
the tool that does the job, and feels comfortable in the process.
Don't, however, try to tell me that the tool I have chosen is
the wrong tool for me to use.
< Oh, probably a lot worse, though emacs users tend to be able to stand
< supported by their left pinky alone after a while.
Can I quote you on that? :-)
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___ qatul batlh.
cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ qatul Huch.
...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | // \\ qatul roj.
The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /'swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (01/31/91)
In article <51896@sequent.UUCP> cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) writes: [...] >pleased with the performance it provides. I think it would behoove >us all to remember that editors are TOOLS, not RELIGIONS. Use >the tool that does the job, and feels comfortable in the process. >Don't, however, try to tell me that the tool I have chosen is >the wrong tool for me to use. [...] Please take a moment to read the first line on your screen. (you know, the one that says, "Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy") OK, so emacs is not a computer. So sue me ;^). But don't complain about "religious" discussions in this group. To quote Clayton Williams, instead you should just "lay back and enjoy it". ;^) No one really believes that you are inferior because you use vi. ;^) But some people may imply it occassionally just for grins... -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) (02/01/91)
In article <t22918.664939482@ursa> t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) writes: <stuf deled> >I've decided that there is a certain breed of people that like to use vi, >around this campus, anyway. These are the people that have IBMs, and >wouldn't trade that nifty command line interface for anything. They like >to get into nitty gritty system details even though there are already >preset routines that do that for them. One of these types, my friend, was <A real hackers comments also removed :> >-- >Matt Ranney Hey, lets be nice, THIS is c.s.a.adv, so we all agree, or don't care, or if they don't agree (ie use another type of computer), lets not be rude. I like cli, I like Csh, I like VI I hate the Mac for not having a CLI, I hate DOS for not having a usefull windowing enviorment, I like unix cause its like an AMIGA, Multitasking, Windowing (with X and such) and has a CLI. Of course, you don't have to have gobs of memory or disk space for AmigaDos (well KS20 takes 1MB!, this is on a machine which HAS to load it into memory), but since I don't own the unix I work/play on, I could care less. (student!) Somewhat to the side... I don't know if you have ever tried out Zkick and 2.0, but it amazes me that I can load 2.0 into ram, reboot and get such a very different machine! I mean the screen is totally redesigned, the menus are different, the Icons look different, yet I have not installed AmigaDos 2.0! Any comments? Eric Wampner eww@heretic.engr.ucf.edu "The 1000 is dead, long live the 1000" -Me
eric@eklektik.UUCP (/dev/tty000) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan28.214019.14781@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <1991Jan28.201856.7624@cbnews.att.com> itch@cbnews.att.com (richard.m.brack) writes: >>In article <1991Jan28.165534.110@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >Of course the ideal would be a dedicated keypad like in the VAX keypad editor. What? And make me move my hand 4 inches to the right? Sacrilige! -- Eric Kennedy eric@eklektik.pgh.pa.us BIX: ekennedy ...pitt!idis!eklektik!eric Pittsburgh Commodore Group BBS: (412) 434-5483
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/03/91)
ms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) writes: [One upsmanship in getting files created continues...] > [...] Actually, I wave refrigerator magnets around in hopes of > accidentally altering the disk's magnetic configuration such that my > textfile appears as I wanted it. Nice to know that handwaving hasn't gone out of style in explaining why the code is coming along so slowly, Mike! ;-) Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (02/05/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: < cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) writes: < [...] < >pleased with the performance it provides. I think it would behoove < >us all to remember that editors are TOOLS, not RELIGIONS. Use < >the tool that does the job, and feels comfortable in the process. < >Don't, however, try to tell me that the tool I have chosen is < >the wrong tool for me to use. < [...] < Please take a moment to read the first line on your screen. < < (you know, the one that says, "Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy") (Blush) You're right... I don't know WHAT came over me! That said, let me just state for the record that ALL 'real programmers' use vi, which, as has been noted previously, is pronounced vee-eye. Only inferior wimps who fear the power of UNIX/AmigDOS and the shell use novice level editors like emacs. :-) :-) :-) < OK, so emacs is not a computer. So sue me ;^). If you insist! :-) < _. < --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. < Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- < V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | /o -- -- -- cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> ||| -- -- - I'm Outta Here, Man! ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman |vvvv/ -- -- - The Home of the Killer Smiley |___/ -- -- --
djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (02/05/91)
In article <52234@sequent.UUCP> cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) writes: >(Blush) You're right... I don't know WHAT came over me! That said, >let me just state for the record that ALL 'real programmers' use vi, >which, as has been noted previously, is pronounced vee-eye. Only >inferior wimps who fear the power of UNIX/AmigDOS and the shell use >novice level editors like emacs. :-) :-) :-) True enough. All novices switch to Emacs as soon as they discover that there are no vi manuals in existance in the entire company/school, and that the resident vi guru learned the trade by reading the source code. -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.
remy@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Remy Wetzels) (02/08/91)
Article 329 of comp.sys.amiga.advocacy: Path: gem!tuegate.tue.nl!svin02!hp4nl!mcsun!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!masscomp!peora!tarpit!osceola.cs.ucf.edu!eww From: eww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: HEY- editor wars! Keywords: editor Message-ID: <1991Jan31.222307.16670@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> Date: 31 Jan 91 22:23:07 GMT References: <t22918.664916376@ursa> <Q22+C7*@irie.ais.org> <t22918.664939482@ursa> Sender: news@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Network News) Organization: engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando Lines: 34 In article <t22918.664939482@ursa> t22918@iti.org (Matt Ranney ) writes: <stuf deled> >I've decided that there is a certain breed of people that like to use vi, >around this campus, anyway. These are the people that have IBMs, and >wouldn't trade that nifty command line interface for anything. They like >to get into nitty gritty system details even though there are already >preset routines that do that for them. One of these types, my friend, was <A real hackers comments also removed :> >-- >Matt Ranney Hey, lets be nice, THIS is c.s.a.adv, so we all agree, or don't care, or if they don't agree (ie use another type of computer), lets not be rude. I like cli, I like Csh, I like VI I hate the Mac for not having a CLI, I hate DOS for not having a usefull windowing enviorment, I like unix cause its like an AMIGA, Multitasking, Windowing (with X and such) and has a CLI. Of course, you don't have to have gobs of memory or disk space for AmigaDos (well KS20 takes 1MB!, this is on a machine which HAS to load it into memory), but since I don't own the unix I work/play on, I could care less. (student!) Somewhat to the side... I don't know if you have ever tried out Zkick and 2.0, but it amazes me that I can load 2.0 into ram, reboot and get such a very different machine! I mean the screen is totally redesigned, the menus are different, the Icons look different, yet I have not installed AmigaDos 2.0! Any comments? Eric Wampner eww@heretic.engr.ucf.edu "The 1000 is dead, long live the 1000" -Me
remy@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Remy Wetzels) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Jan31.222307.16670@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> (Eric Wampner) writes: >I hate the Mac for not having a CLI, I hate DOS for not having a usefull >windowing enviorment, I like unix cause its like an AMIGA, Multitasking, >Windowing (with X and such) and has a CLI. ACT NORMAL, YOU FOOL! I LIKE Unix cause its LIKE AN AMIGA, Multitasking????????????? If you call an Amiga a Multitasking machine, what are UNIX machines???? (GOD??) Commodore wasn't even born when Unix was invented!!!!!!!!!! You said the same as in the banana-commercial: " Don't call a Chiquita a banana." Any normal machine (Yes, even an ATARI ST) can perform multitasking. Multi- tasking is always made by the software, not the hardware! And besides: The Macintosh has probably the best software ever written on a computer. And IMHO it has the still the best graphics manager (GM(Not the Trade Mark)). And I found out for myself that a CLI is the best thing you can have. There are now coming some good GM(ntm) on the market, but untill there is a superb one I still stick with my very simple CLI. An ST Friend who will always love UNIX, |-----------------------| Remy Wetzels | Alias Remy Mindcrime | | Alias ls -b Order Beer| "The Criminal Mind found at the Scene of the Crime"| Alias rm -b Drink Beer| " Handcuffed and Blind, I didn't do it... "| Alias ftp b Buy Beer | | Alias Beer Brand Beer| "I don't believe in Love"-Queensryche |-----------------------| ============================================================================= Email: Internet: remy@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl Bitnet: rcstack2@heitue5 Computer Association STACK, Computing Centre RC 1.58, Eindhoven University of Technology, POBox 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Holland.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <148@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl> remy@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Remy Wetzels) writes: >In article <1991Jan31.222307.16670@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> (Eric Wampner) writes: >>I hate the Mac for not having a CLI, I hate DOS for not having a usefull >>windowing enviorment, I like unix cause its like an AMIGA, Multitasking, >>Windowing (with X and such) and has a CLI. > >ACT NORMAL, YOU FOOL! >I LIKE Unix cause its LIKE AN AMIGA, Multitasking????????????? > >If you call an Amiga a Multitasking machine, what are UNIX machines???? (GOD??) > >Commodore wasn't even born when Unix was invented!!!!!!!!!! Did Eric IMPLY that the Amiga invented multitasking? No, I believe he didn't. Your condescending attitude isn't really appropriate, even given that this is c.s.a.advocacy. >Any normal machine (Yes, even an ATARI ST) can perform multitasking. Multi- >tasking is always made by the software, not the hardware! True and false. The hardware must have some support for true, fast, USEFUL multitasking. I'm not saying that you have to have dual-port memory, but a co-processor or three doesn't hurt. Also, to take advantage of multitasking you have to program with a whole different set of rules, which is one reason DOS machines (for example) have been so slow at it. The Amiga's native OS (not some add-on hack) provides for CPU-friendly alternatives to single-tasking machine programming techniques such as busy- waiting for keyboard input. In this particular case, you tell the OS you want keyboard input, then your task goes to sleep until such time as you get it. > An ST Friend who will always love UNIX, I really have to ask if you've ever used a machine with proprietary, real- time multitasking. No, Unix doesn't count. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."