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

Groups > comp.misc > #2792

Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web