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

Groups > comp.misc > #2812

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

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