From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Apr 20 10: 8: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in (theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in [144.16.71.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D3B037B69A for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in) Received: (qmail 7859 invoked by uid 211); 20 Apr 2000 16:32:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:02:31 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: David Scheidt Cc: Alexander Langer , Christian Weisgerber , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ViM vs. Emacs Message-ID: <20000420220231.A7825@physics.iisc.ernet.in> References: <20000420211628.A7696@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from dscheidt@enteract.com on Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 11:26:38AM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Then you use nvi's multiple undo feature, of course. u, followed by however > many '.'s as you'd like. How do you undo an undo in vim? ^R (redo) > I reached the conclusion that vim is not a vi clone. It's a modal editor > that happens to work something something like vi. Lots of the defaults are > wrong, it's big, and it's slow. vi is neither big nor slow. You can call it what you like. I'm not arguing that it's "better", or that anything else "sucks", but it has some features I like, so I use it, and I couldn't care less whether people want to call it a vi clone or not. Also (to return to the thing that sparked it all) it's not as big or slow as emacs :) anyway iirc you can compile it without the GUI option, which should make it much smaller. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message