Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2776 > unrolled thread

Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-13 17:33 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2014-05-13 19:47 +0200
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-13 18:02 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-13 18:22 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-13 20:31 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-14 14:12 +0200
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 14:05 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-13 19:47 +0100
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 21:39 +0100
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-13 22:31 +0100
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 23:26 +0100
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-13 20:22 -0400
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:44 +0000
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 09:59 -0400
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 12:24 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:14 -0400
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 02:08 +0100
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 10:24 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 13:01 +0300
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:47 +0000
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 15:39 +0300
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 18:51 +0000
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 22:40 +0300
                        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 20:15 +0000
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 14:01 +0000
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 18:53 +0000
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-15 11:39 +0000
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 14:11 +0100
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 15:16 +0100
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:46 -0400
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 13:37 +0100
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-15 22:42 +0100
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 23:14 +0100
                        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-16 04:00 -0300
                          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-16 10:46 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:17 -0400
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-14 16:55 -0300
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-15 00:07 +0300
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-16 03:46 -0300
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2014-05-15 08:03 +0200
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-15 11:41 -0500
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@hushmail.com> - 2014-05-15 13:44 -0500
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-15 21:59 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-14 14:21 +0200
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-14 14:00 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-05-13 21:33 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:02 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 10:20 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Christian Brandt <brandtc@psi5.com> - 2014-05-15 09:32 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#2838

>An editor is a trivial tool (not to create, obviously)
In any RAD environment writing a Notepad clone should take less than an hour.
Advanced editors can save time when you need advanced features. �
I once had a project manager who insisted we could only use the editor built  
into Visual C++ - which then didn't support macros, regexs etc.

While on this project I was given the task of rewriting about a hundred  
scripts. These were written in our own custom language, but the language  
syntax had changed. The changes were too complex to do with a simple replace  
but still pretty boring.

I was given 2-3 days to do the task. After an hour I got frustrated enough to  
fire up my fave editor (jEdit) and write a macro to do it, and finished it in  
about another hour. When my boss found out why it didn't take 2 days he  
changed his mind about 'standardising' on VC++.

Text editors are subject to the rule "the easier to use, the harder to  
learn". The time saved using vim, say, pays back the time spent learning it -  
but if you use it 8 hours a day it might pay back in a month and if you use  
it 5 minutes a day it might take your lifetime - and you'd be better off  
using notepad.

So the best editor for you depends on much you use it, and what for.
For me jedit [1] hits the sweet spot, for others vim or emacs.
�

�


[1] http://www.jedit.org/
-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6020#comment-26072

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2844

On 2014-05-15, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:

[snip]

> So the best editor for you depends on much you use it, and what for.
> For me jedit [1] hits the sweet spot, for others vim or emacs.

> [1] http://www.jedit.org/

Well said. Absolutely agree.

-- 
Marek Novotny
A member of the Linux Foundation
http://www.linuxfoundation.org
git with the program

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2846

On 2014-05-15, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:
> So the best editor for you depends on much you use it, and what for.
> For me jedit [1] hits the sweet spot, for others vim or emacs.
>
> [1] http://www.jedit.org/

I also use jedit, but not recently.  For email, netnews, etc., I always
go for either vim or emacs.  But I once wrote two books (a total of 6
editions) for a publisher that required a very particular markup
language.  Jedit was easy enough for this non-programmer to configure
that I was able to hack up a syntax highlighting file and some keyboard
macros for some of the markup. [1]  I'd have loved to do the same for
emacs but wasn't able to understand enough emacs lisp to do it.  I did
get vim to do it though [2]:

In those days, I'd reach for jedit as though it were a wordprocessor,
and I pounded out the whole manuscript that way.  For other stuff
though, java + swing makes it load just a tad more slowly than is useful
for me (unless you activate server mode).  Too bad!

[1]
http://therandymon.com/index.php?/199-Woodnotes-Guide-to-Using-Jedit-to-Code-Manuscripts-for-Avalon-Travel-Publishing.html

[2]
http://therandymon.com/index.php?/169-Writing-Avalon-Docs-in-Vim.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2807

On 2014-05-13, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
><rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
>> [Crossposted!  Follow-up set to comp.misc]
>> 
>> Slate is covering "the oldest rivalry in computing" and describing it
>> in layman's terms, which is pretty fun to read.
>
> It's really quite simples:
>
> 1) emacs -> poubelle
>
> 2) Use a GUI text editor of your choice
>
> 3) vim where you've had to boot in single-user mode.
>
>
> That covers all cases.

I've got another case:

4) When the shit really hits the fan and I need to do certain types of
editing I'll fire up VMS in an emulator and use EDIT/TPU.

In my case, over 2 decades of finger memory can be the fastest way to
get some things done.

-- 
Paul Sture

The final step of #heartbleed recovery is to call your mother, and advise
her to change her maiden name                                  -- @gojomo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2809

On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:21:16 +0200, Paul Sture wrote:

> In my case, over 2 decades of finger memory can be the fastest way to
> get some things done.

Yep. In my case, 3 decades of finger memory for emacs!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2786

In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>,
RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>I think it would be interesting to everybody to see how a tech
>writer (Dave Auerbach) describes software to the casual reader.
>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/05/oldest_software_rivalry_emacs_and_vi_two_text_editors_used_by_programmers.html

Within the article, he describes RMS as having spearheaded the open-source
software movement.  I suspect RMS would consider those "fightin' words."

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2797

On 2014-05-13, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>,
> RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>I think it would be interesting to everybody to see how a tech
>>writer (Dave Auerbach) describes software to the casual reader.
>>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/05/oldest_software_rivalry_emacs_and_vi_two_text_editors_used_by_programmers.html
>
> Within the article, he describes RMS as having spearheaded the open-source
> software movement.  I suspect RMS would consider those "fightin' words."

I think RMS considers lots of things "fightin' words."

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 61st day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2798

> > Within the article, he describes RMS as having spearheaded the open-source
> > software movement.  I suspect RMS would consider those "fightin' words."
> 
> I think RMS considers lots of things "fightin' words."

Well, this *was* cross-posted to comp.emacs, so stick around and you
may just find out!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2830

On 13.05.2014 19:33, RS Wood wrote:

> I use and like both, and am happy not only that both are still around
> and getting better after all this time, but that a mag like Slate feels
> it's an important enough story to publish for the general public.

 I started with Micro-Emacs on my Amiga in 1987, continued with full
Emacs on HPUX around 1992. To be honest I also used other editors (Q
when running DOS, CygnusED on Amiga, joe on Unix. Actually I used mostly
joe from 1995 to 1999 but I focus on VI and Emacs in this post).

 Then I started working at a Internet Provider, incidently nearly around
the Launch of Userfriendly, and everyone had to use Vi. Never really
liked it but nowadays I use it most of the time just because it is
small, fast and available on every plattform I own (Amiga, DOS, Windows,
Unix, I even have an vi-lookalike on my C64)

 Emacs? Have stopped using it around 1995. Never used its full potential
anyway.

-- 
Christian Brandt

 life is short and in most cases it ends with death
 but my tombstone will carry the hiscore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web