Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:10:04 -0600 From: "Damon M. Conway" <damon@chiba.3jane.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, James A Wilde <james.wilde@telia.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Programmers' editor? Message-ID: <199911241910.NAA28083@chiba.3jane.net> In-Reply-To: <19991124135521.44585@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9911231240360.4557-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> <00e101bf3681$44cb04a0$8c0aa8c0@hk.tbv.se> <19991124103253.B2554@orion.ac.hmc.edu> <19991124135521.44585@mojave.sitaranetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: >On Wednesday, 24 November 1999 at 10:32:53 -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 02:39:01PM +0100, James A Wilde wrote: >> >>> And I don't really think vi is crap. It's just that the only thing >>> less intuitive in its natural state than vi is probably emacs. <ducks >>> and moves out of the war zone> <grin>. >> >> You aren't going to get any argument from me there. ;-) > >OK, I've said my piece here, and I disagree entirely. But it's not up >to me; I've been using Emacs and similar editors for 20 years. The >real question is: what do newbies think? Anybody want to comment? >Also, Brooks, have you *used* Emacs? Recently? If so, I'd like to >know what you consider non-intuitive. i've done a lot of editory hunting recently, and have found vim to be just perfect. it has colorization, syntax modes like emacs, buffers like emacs, lots of customization options, and is still small and fast unlike emacs. i never thought the use of ctrl and alt to be very intuative. i always prefered the : and all of the great expression matching right there. the man pages are quite good, and i don't have to know lisp to effectively customize it. as with anything new, you must clear your mind and realize that what you are learning is unlike anything you've ever done before so don't expect it to be. and with editors, it's all a matter of opinion anyway. :) >> Actually, if you're going to spend much time in UNIX, you should at >> least have basic proficiency with vi since it's always there and >> emacs may not be. > >There I agree entirely. I do use vi for exactly this reason. that's why i tell every new unix user to learn vi. they'll always have it. damon -- Damon Conway Black Rock City Ranger...Riding the edge of chaos "Ana Ng and I are getting old, but we still haven't walked in the glow of each other's majestic presence." -- TMBG To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911241910.NAA28083>