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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#2776 — Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later

[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.  This isn't an
invitation to reopen the debate (especially since I'm cross posting to
both comp.editors and comp.emacs - kindly refrain).  I'm crossposting
because 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

//--snip
"In a world where both software and hardware frequently become obsolete
right on release, two rival programs can stake a claim to being among
the longest-lived applications of all time.  Both programs are about to
enter their fifth decades. ... These two wizened programs are as close
to equally matched enemies as any two programs have ever been. If you
know a programmer who uses one of them, there’s a good chance that she
hates the other."
//--snip

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2777

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> [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.  This isn't an
> invitation to reopen the debate (especially since I'm cross posting to
> both comp.editors and comp.emacs - kindly refrain).  I'm crossposting
> because 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
>
> //--snip
> "In a world where both software and hardware frequently become obsolete
> right on release, two rival programs can stake a claim to being among
> the longest-lived applications of all time.  Both programs are about to
> enter their fifth decades. ... These two wizened programs are as close
> to equally matched enemies as any two programs have ever been. If you
> know a programmer who uses one of them, there’s a good chance that she
> hates the other."
> //--snip
>
> 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.

It should be noted that this is only the tip of the iceberg of a big
split in the software world.  

  vi    - unix          - bytes   - file systems  - bazar
                                                                etc.
  emacs - lisp-machines - objects - image systems - cathedral

See The Unix Hater Handbook: http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
"Le mercure monte ?  C'est le moment d'acheter !"

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

#2778

On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:33:43 +0000, RS Wood 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.  This isn't an invitation
> to reopen the debate (especially since I'm cross posting to both
> comp.editors and comp.emacs - kindly refrain).  I'm crossposting because
> 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
> 
> //--snip "In a world where both software and hardware frequently become
> obsolete right on release, two rival programs can stake a claim to being
> among the longest-lived applications of all time.  Both programs are
> about to enter their fifth decades. ... These two wizened programs are
> as close to equally matched enemies as any two programs have ever been.
> If you know a programmer who uses one of them, there’s a good chance
> that she hates the other."
> //--snip
> 
> 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 use emacs and ed....!

As for long lived programs..I also use this:

  http://www.ml1.org.uk

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

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

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

#2779

> 
> As for long lived programs..I also use this:
> 
>   http://www.ml1.org.uk

Yikes, that looks a very unfriendly bit of software.  BTW the "one" and the "ELL" in that URL must have been the source of a lot a confusion!  Not sure what font Chrome on Windows uses for the URL bar but it's awfully confusing to look at!

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

#2783

On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:22:42 +0000, RS Wood wrote:


>> As for long lived programs..I also use this:
>> 
>>   http://www.ml1.org.uk
> 
> Yikes, that looks a very unfriendly bit of software.  BTW the "one" and
> the "ELL" in that URL must have been the source of a lot a confusion! 
> Not sure what font Chrome on Windows uses for the URL bar but it's
> awfully confusing to look at!

OK here on my newsreader...!

I've used the program (for a LOT of different things) since 1971...but it 
was written in 1966....



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

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

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

#2806

On 2014-05-13, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> As for long lived programs..I also use this:
>> 
>>   http://www.ml1.org.uk
>
> Yikes, that looks a very unfriendly bit of software.  BTW the "one" and
> the "ELL" in that URL must have been the source of a lot a confusion! 
> Not sure what font Chrome on Windows uses for the URL bar but it's
> awfully confusing to look at!

That wouldn't be perchance the accursed Arial font or similar would it?

-- 
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]

#2811

> That wouldn't be perchance the accursed Arial font or similar would it?

I wouldn't be surprised.  Interesting software, by the way, but it
looks daunting/intimidating.  New "app" programmers don't have any idea what they're missing.  They can just argue over which web framework is more interesting.  In the old days - of which I took no part - you had to deal with some spectacularly user-defying software, and you had to learn it inside and out.

Hell, I've been reading the man pages for pppd this week and that's user-defying enough, and that is only about ten years old!

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

#2781

RS Wood 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.  This isn't an
> invitation to reopen the debate (especially since I'm cross posting to
> both comp.editors and comp.emacs - kindly refrain).  I'm crossposting
> because 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
>
> //--snip
> "In a world where both software and hardware frequently become obsolete
> right on release, two rival programs can stake a claim to being among
> the longest-lived applications of all time.  Both programs are about to
> enter their fifth decades. ... These two wizened programs are as close
> to equally matched enemies as any two programs have ever been. If you
> know a programmer who uses one of them, there’s a good chance that she
> hates the other."
> //--snip

"they are not WYSIWYG"... um, yes they are.

> 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.
>


-- 
[...] They listened at his heart.
Little-less-nothing!-and that ended it.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.
                "Out, Out-", Robert Frost, 1916.

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

#2784

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.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

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

#2785

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> 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

What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.

Your 1 and 2 may well be unconnected; i.e. maybe you do consider emacs
to have a GUI but you want to bin it for other reasons (which I don't
want to go into -- that's entirely a matter for you), but the
juxtaposition of the two remarks made me wonder.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#2787

In article
<0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> 
> > 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
> 
> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.

(I may have posted this before so apols if so)

Some 25 years ago at SLAC, we'd all been using IBM's editor (can't even
remember its name, now) on character terminals connected to a 3270
emulator. Then we got a few Suns running whatever it was, some flavour
of unix. Immediately there began a debate about which editor we should
all standardise on - vi, emacs, jove, possibly a few others. I assumed
I'd be learning one of these, once something was chosen.

In the meantime I had work to do, and having had some exposure to a Mac
at that point, got going using Notepad. As it was a "toy" editor, which
took me all of five minutes to learn, I still assumed I'd be learning a
"proper" editor at some point.

After six months, folks were still arguing about vi, emacs, etc etc.
Meanwhile I'd been able to write and run a lot of code. At this point
it suddenly dawned on me that there was no need to learn *any* of these
prehistoric monsters. An editor is a trivial tool (not to create,
obviously). Why, then, should I have to "learn" it? It should be
trivial to use, and as long as you understand the idea of the mouse,
menus, drag/drop, and one or two other GUI notions, something like
Notepad, BBedit, TextWrangler, and doubtless others, are indeed trivial
to use for the most part. And guess what - those skills transfer to a
large number of other programs. Whereas knowing that, what is it, J
will join two line in vi doesn't transfer to anything. [1]

That way I can avoid wasting valuable brain-cells with remembering
keyboard shortcuts, except for the half-dozen or so that are standard
on all OS X programs.

Of course, geeks don't like this as it undermines their priesthood, but
fuck 'em, is what I say. 

[1] I had to look that up on my Ultrix vi Beginner's Reference card,
copyright DEC 1985, 1988

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

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

#2788

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
>> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
>> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
>> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
>
> (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
>
> Some 25 years ago at SLAC, we'd all been using IBM's editor (can't even
> remember its name, now) on character terminals connected to a 3270
> emulator.

Most likely ISPF Edit, or XEdit.  Both reasonably good block mode
editors.

> Then we got a few Suns running whatever it was, some flavour
> of unix. Immediately there began a debate about which editor we should
> all standardise on - vi, emacs, jove, possibly a few others. I assumed
> I'd be learning one of these, once something was chosen.

Sounds like a dysfunctional environment.
Why should you "standardize" on anything?

Some people like vi, some, emacs, others (horrors) Notepad.

> In the meantime I had work to do, and having had some exposure to a Mac
> at that point, got going using Notepad. As it was a "toy" editor, which
> took me all of five minutes to learn, I still assumed I'd be learning a
> "proper" editor at some point.
>
> After six months, folks were still arguing about vi, emacs, etc etc.
> Meanwhile I'd been able to write and run a lot of code. At this point
> it suddenly dawned on me that there was no need to learn *any* of these
> prehistoric monsters. An editor is a trivial tool (not to create,
> obviously).

For some of us, editors are really not all that hard to create.

> ... snipage

> That way I can avoid wasting valuable brain-cells with remembering
> keyboard shortcuts, except for the half-dozen or so that are standard
> on all OS X programs.

If you are a programmer, the one tool you really have to use all
the time is an editor.  People with the Emacs mindset, (like myself),
realize that we're going to be  using this tool a lot.  The key to
increasing productivity is to tune the tool at the center of your
activity.

Just because you view coding as brute force typing doesn't mean
everyone else shares your view.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#2800

On 2014-05-14, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

[69 lines snipped]

> Just because you view coding as brute force typing doesn't mean
> everyone else shares your view.

Don't worry, Streater's an idiot.


-- 
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]

#2808

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> On 2014-05-14, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>
> [69 lines snipped]
>
>> Just because you view coding as brute force typing doesn't mean
>> everyone else shares your view.
>
> Don't worry, Streater's an idiot.

Well, maybe.  But is he immune to reason?
Somehow when I read his reply I think I'll find out...

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#2802

In article <icd2fh2opu.fsf@home.home>, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> > Some 25 years ago at SLAC, we'd all been using IBM's editor (can't even
> > remember its name, now) on character terminals connected to a 3270
> > emulator.
> 
> Most likely ISPF Edit, or XEdit.  Both reasonably good block mode
> editors.

Thanks, yes, it was XEdit.

> > Then we got a few Suns running whatever it was, some flavour
> > of unix. Immediately there began a debate about which editor we should
> > all standardise on - vi, emacs, jove, possibly a few others. I assumed
> > I'd be learning one of these, once something was chosen.
> 
> Sounds like a dysfunctional environment.
> Why should you "standardize" on anything?

Based on what had been previous SOP, I suppose the expectation was that
there'd be training on the chosen editor, in particular since XEdit was
widely used by non-programmers. So the idea was that a choice would be
made, and non-programmers would then need training on it. My
involvement in the whole process I have described was, BTW, somewhere
between peripheral and not-at-all.

> Some people like vi, some, emacs, others (horrors) Notepad.

I doubt if the programming staff would have been prohibited from using
whatever they wanted.

> If you are a programmer, the one tool you really have to use all
> the time is an editor.

Sure. And if you do programming and other things, there may be some
periods when the editor is not in use. Since I don't particularly value
learning obscure key combinations to effect editor actions, I prefer
applications that are self-documenting.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

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

#2812

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article <icd2fh2opu.fsf@home.home>, Dan.Espen <despen@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>
>> > Some 25 years ago at SLAC, we'd all been using IBM's editor (can't even
>> > remember its name, now) on character terminals connected to a 3270
>> > emulator.
>>
>> Most likely ISPF Edit, or XEdit.  Both reasonably good block mode
>> editors.
>
> Thanks, yes, it was XEdit.

Okay I worked in a shop with XEdit.
As I remember, in it's default state, it looked like hell.
But it was highly customizable and after some tweaks I liked it a lot.
Still a block mode editor doesn't compete well with something that
understands every keystroke.

>> > Then we got a few Suns running whatever it was, some flavour
>> > of unix. Immediately there began a debate about which editor we should
>> > all standardise on - vi, emacs, jove, possibly a few others. I assumed
>> > I'd be learning one of these, once something was chosen.
>>
>> Sounds like a dysfunctional environment.
>> Why should you "standardize" on anything?
>
> Based on what had been previous SOP, I suppose the expectation was that
> there'd be training on the chosen editor, in particular since XEdit was
> widely used by non-programmers. So the idea was that a choice would be
> made, and non-programmers would then need training on it. My
> involvement in the whole process I have described was, BTW, somewhere
> between peripheral and not-at-all.

Editor training?  What ever happened to good old word of mouth.
Actually, I made a few presentations I titled "ISPF tricks and
techniques" at one place I worked.

>> Some people like vi, some, emacs, others (horrors) Notepad.
>
> I doubt if the programming staff would have been prohibited from using
> whatever they wanted.

Which is the way it should be.

>> If you are a programmer, the one tool you really have to use all
>> the time is an editor.
>
> Sure. And if you do programming and other things, there may be some
> periods when the editor is not in use. Since I don't particularly value
> learning obscure key combinations to effect editor actions, I prefer
> applications that are self-documenting.

In case you don't know, Emacs comes with a menubar and a tool bar.
Both easy to toggle visible/invisible.  The menubar tells you what
the keystrokes are and you can provide your own.  So, if you are
a pointy/clicky guy, Emacs works fine.  If you'd like to speed
up the process, use the keystrokes.  If you don't like the keystrokes,
use your own.

For example, I compile and test a lot.

The default for that is M-x compile.
But I've bound F1 to M-x compile.

If I want to know more, I type ^h f compile (Help function compile)
and it tells me:

  compile is an interactive compiled Lisp function.

  It is bound to <f1>, <menu-bar> <tools> <compile>.

  (compile COMMAND &optional COMINT)

  Compile the program including the current buffer.  Default: run `make'.
  Runs COMMAND, a shell command, in a separate process asynchronously
  with output going to the buffer `*compilation*'.

  You can then use the command C-x ` to find the next error message
  and move to the source code that caused it.

  If optional second arg COMINT is t the buffer will be in Comint mode with
  `compilation-shell-minor-mode'.

  Interactively, prompts for the command if `compilation-read-command' is
  non-nil; otherwise uses `compile-command'.  With prefix arg, always prompts.
  Additionally, with universal prefix arg, compilation buffer will be in
  comint mode, i.e. interactive.

  To run more than one compilation at once, start one then rename
  the `*compilation*' buffer to some other name with
  M-x rename-buffer.  Then _switch buffers_ and start the new compilation.
  It will create a new `*compilation*' buffer.

  On most systems, termination of the main compilation process
  kills its subprocesses.

  The name used for the buffer is actually whatever is returned by
  the function in `compilation-buffer-name-function', so you can set that
  to a function that generates a unique name.

If that isn't self documenting, you have a strange definition of self
documenting.

As far as "obscure" keystrokes, there's CUA-MODE for those windows
standard keystrokes, and Viper mode for people that have vi keystrokes
hard coded in their gray matter.

But best of all is the open ended customization.
Don't ask "can emacs do this".  Just search for the package.
You'll find it.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#2789

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
>> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
>> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
>> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
>
> (I may have posted this before so apols if so)

Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
question because if it was, I missed how?

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#2792

In article
<0.bdba31149921122e329c.20140514020829BST.87mweldv5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> 
> > In article
> > <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
> >> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
> >> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
> >> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
> >
> > (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
> 
> Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
> question because if it was, I missed how?

:-)

My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is intended
for use on a VT100 or equivalent (that was certainly the case at the
time I was referring to), and not on a bit-mapped display with a mouse,
such as is the case with Notepad and equivalent.

Under these conditions, I would consider Notepad et al as having a GUI,
and emacs as not having one.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

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

#2796

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:

> My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is
> intended for use on a VT100 or equivalent (that was certainly the case
> at the time I was referring to), and not on a bit-mapped display with
> a mouse, such as is the case with Notepad and equivalent.

Emacs, which I use for 99% of my typing needs (including this very
message), supports both a GUI interface and a terminal interface. The
GUI interface is complete with menus, scrollbars, mouse, fonts, pictures
etc.

The terminal support is a killer feature. I'm often connected to diverse
machines over SSH. In principle X11 graphics work over the WAN, but in
practice the jitter is very inconvenient so the possibility to run emacs
inside a terminal window is crucial. There's no mouse or menus then, but
emacs users tend to keep their fingers on the keyboard all the time
anyway so I don't notice the absence of the mouse.


Marko

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

#2801

On 2014-05-14, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:
>
>> My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is
>> intended for use on a VT100 or equivalent (that was certainly the case
>> at the time I was referring to), and not on a bit-mapped display with
>> a mouse, such as is the case with Notepad and equivalent.

Notepad? Style over substance. And not much style, at that.

> Emacs, which I use for 99% of my typing needs (including this very
> message), supports both a GUI interface and a terminal interface. The
> GUI interface is complete with menus, scrollbars, mouse, fonts, pictures
> etc.
>
> The terminal support is a killer feature. I'm often connected to diverse
> machines over SSH. In principle X11 graphics work over the WAN, but in
> practice the jitter is very inconvenient so the possibility to run emacs
> inside a terminal window is crucial. There's no mouse or menus then, but
> emacs users tend to keep their fingers on the keyboard all the time
> anyway so I don't notice the absence of the mouse.

I wouldn't worry. Streater's arrogance is such that he only sees two
ways of doing something; his way and the wrong way.


-- 
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]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web