🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <joshi.660338789@m.cs.uiuc.edu> joshi@cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi) writes:
>The point of the matter is that vi sucks in sveral ways, where as
>ISPF is a truly wonderful editor.

Whoah.  A bit of an opinion, don't you think?

Let me say right up front that I have used (in this order):

1.  Personal Editor II for the IBM PC
2.  Turbo Pascal (and, later, Turbo C) Editor
3.  vi
4.  XEDIT on VM/CMS
5.  emacs
6.  ISPF on VM/CMS

I know (or once knew) how to write macros for PE2, vi, and XEDIT (in REXX).
After having used all of these, I'd say that the best editor for people who are
non-computer-oriented is PE2 for the PC, and the best for computer people is
either vi or emacs.  Let me explain why.

PE2 has *excellent* response time, supports multiple files and windows, and has
a *very* easy-to-use macro capability.  Commands are generally bound to the
function keys and to ALT-keystokes.  The macro capability (last time I checked)
doesn't offer any control constructs, but it's simple to use because every
editor function has a long mnemonic name and a short two-character name, and
any key can be bound to a list of functions, either spelled out or
abbreviated.  The problem that "power users" might have (or at least, the
problem I have with it) is that most major functions, such as cursor motion and
saving/searching/etc. are bound to the arrow keys and to function keys.  I type
70 wpm or more, so it slows me down to have to move my hands off the home row.

The Turbo Pascal (and other Borland-products) editor is basically WordStar, and
doesn't have much of a macro capability, as I recall.  I never liked it very
much, though I don't remember why now (it's been a long time).

vi is my favorite editor, but it is not for everyone.  I love vi because of the
speed it offers.  vi, in general, offers the best response time I've seen, and
eliminates the problem of taking my hands off the home row.  I freely admit
that a modal editor can be difficult to use, but I personally have never had a
problem with it.  vi offers a limited macro capability in a similar vein to
PE2, except that the macros are defined by actual keystrokes, not
function-names.  However, since vi is built atop ex, the user has access to all
of the ex functionality.  True, ex is getting to be quite obscure since most
people never touch a teletype anymore (I said *most people*, no flames please).
However, if you're willing to spend the time to learn a few of its commands, or
have a master to teach you, then the power to be gained is very worthwhile.  In
addition, vi offers regular-expression matching, which I've only found in one
other editor, emacs.  I use regular-expression matching quite often (daily,
probably).  Another feature about vi is that the user can pipe parts of a file
through a filter.  Most people never do this, and may not even know about it,
but I've learned to do some pretty fancy stuff using sort, colrm, cut, paste,
fmt, etc.

emacs is another good editor.  There's a lot of religious debate in UNIX
circles about which is better, vi or emacs.  I've posted before, admitting that
emacs is a better editor and explaining why; but I also explained why I still
prefer vi.  Simply: I don't like lisp, I don't like running under an
interpreted (read: slow) environment, and emacs (GNU Emacs, that is) is both.
However, for those that can stand lisp, and are willing to put up with a
slightly (but only slightly) slower editor, with a virtual unlimited macro
capability, emacs may be the way to go.

The ISPF editor is a very old editor, but still useful.  However, given the
opportunity, I'd still use XEDIT.  I got the feeling this summer when I worked
at IBM that there's an ISPF vs. XEDIT religious debate in IBM mainframe circles
along the lines of the vi vs. emacs debate in UNIX circles.  I met people over
the summer who were amazingly proficient at ISPF, and I was continually
impressed with the little tricks they did.  However, one major problem I have
ISPF is that it *always* shows sequence numbers.  There's no way to turn them
off.  Now, sequence numbers are fine for programming, but when I read mail
that's been written in 80 columns, 72 columns just aren't enough.  Also,
although ISPF provides a macro facility, I could never figure out how to
redefine keys to my heart's content.  Finally, there's the fact that it runs on
3270s.  I have used a version for PCs, but it simply simulated a 3270-style
terminal.  Hence, no scrolling.  Don't get me wrong - I perfectly understand
the logic behind the 3720 terminal concept (screen-at-a-time).  I agree that it
has modern uses, and is an efficient solution to some problems.  However, as a
terminal running an interactive text editor, it *sucks*.  In my humble opinion.
ISPF and XEDIT were built around that fact; I can only regret that if
character-at-a-time terminals had existed when they were written, the
state-of-the-art in interactive editors might be that much further along.

So, in summary, PE2 for users, vi (or emacs) for "power users".  And if you're
screwed - er, I'm mean stuck with a 3270-style terminal, I'd go with XEDIT -
it's much more flexible than ISPF, and offers (as far as I can tell) most of
the features of ISPF.

Flame-shield activated.
-- 
/_  rob		<mayoff@cs.utexas.edu>
 /_ Fun things to do with UNIX (#72 in a series):
  / cat /dev/zero > /dev/null