🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3159@ucl-cs.uucp> G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:


>Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
>now ubiquitous.

Oh, no... here we (apperantly) go again.

Just another my-editor-is-better-than-yours war is just what we needed.
(NOT!)


I can give you one reason why I use vi over emacs:  (but PLEASE
remember that it is only my opinions.)

  I find I'm quicker in editing with vi, than with emacs


Why can't the emacs and the vi legion join forces agains (say) Macintrashes
or PClones? :-)
instead of pickering so much about which editor is the best.


That is my opinion.  Flames (about why I use vi or why I should use vi) are
immediately redirected to /dev/null


--
einari@rhi.hi.is

G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:

> Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
> now ubiquitous.

Because emacs isn't ubiquitous, and because people use vi.  You might as
well ask why they still sell manual transmissions in cars.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Behind every argument is someone's ignorance." -- Louis D. Brandeis

G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
>
>Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
>now ubiquitous.
>

The emacs interface is not superior to the vi interface.  As has been
stated approximately MAXINT times in this newsgroup, different people
have different preferences, and the existence of one editor does not
mandate the uselessness of another.  One might as well ask, "why are
pears, guavas, apricots, oranges and apples all for sale at my local
supermarket?  Aren't they all just fruit?"

I'm sure that when yet another editor comes out -- perhaps one that
catches and corrects phrases like "at the the very least" -- various
sects will hail that, too, as the new messiah.  We vi users will
doubtless continue to get our work done.

>____
>
>Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
>Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
>Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:

>Because emacs isn't ubiquitous, and because people use vi.  You might as
>well ask why they still sell manual transmissions in cars.
Because manual transmissions are simply better (more efficient and provide
more control) if you neglect the amount of training the driver needs).  
That's why racing cars have manual transmissions.
Yeah, I drive a manual and use vi.

>-- 

						Noam

G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) wrote in <3159@ucl-cs.uucp>:

| Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
| now ubiquitous.

I've never understood why people who prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate
ice cream react to others' preference for chocolate by saying, "Oh?  I like
vanilla better myself," yet those who prefer chocolate react to others'
taste for vanilla with, "You're crazy!  You're insane!  Everyone knows that
chocolate is better!"  Similar comparisons can be made of Pepsi drinkers
("You like Coke? OK.") to Coke drinkers ("Pepsi?  How in hell can you drink
Pepsi?") and vi users ("Use emacs if you want.") to emacs users ("vi SUCKS!").

If you have a single-user system and don't want vi on it, rm it.  No one can
legimitately question your right to do that.

David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818

dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (DWT) writes:

>If you have a single-user system and don't want vi on it, rm it.  No one can
>legimitately question your right to do that.

rm (may be ;-)

>David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
>dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818

Anil
joshi@cs.uiuc.edu
-- 
Sathsangatve nissangatvam	From good company to no company
Nissangatve nirmohatvam		From no company to lack of desire
Nirmohatve  nischaltatvam	From lack of desire to concentration of mind
Nischalatatve jeevanmuktihi	From concentration of mind to death

G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:


>Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
>now ubiquitous.

Why on earth should we install emacs on our machines, and call it to use
a vi emulation, while the real vi is faster and 7 times smaller?

What vi folks like with it is that it is a simple editor (neither a
newsreader, nor a mailer, nor a debugger, nor a coffee machine...), and
that most movements are obtained with a single keystroke (no CTRL, no
SHIFT), and it is moded - yes, I like it!

What vi lacks is a more powerfull macro-language, and multi-buffer features.
Perhaps multiple windows, and certainly some X features (windows, mouse...).
Editors much more simple than emacs provide such features (such as microemacs,
or vile).
--
Gilles BERGER SABBATEL                  Tel: (33) 76 57 46 13
Laboratoire d'appartenance : TIM3
IMAG-LGI/INPG, 46 Avenue Felix Viallet, 38031 GRENOBLE CEDEX - FRANCE

In article <berger.720778310@gram> berger@imag.fr (Gilles BERGER SABBATEL) writes:
>What vi lacks is a more powerfull macro-language, and multi-buffer features.
>Perhaps multiple windows, and certainly some X features (windows, mouse...).
>Editors much more simple than emacs provide such features (such as microemacs,
>or vile).

Exactly what you have described will be a project I'll be working on.
It will be my final-year project (I am studying CompSci), and I'll
try to put a lot of X features in vi. At the moment I'm trying to see
if I can use any source code from a vi-clone, e.g. stevie, so I can
concentrate more on the X interface.

If you have any ideas, suggestions or comments on vi and any extra
features you'd like under X (e.g. buffer mark/yank etc. using the mouse),
please let me know.

Manos.
-- 
Manos D Papatheofanous   - Email: ep3@doc.ic.ac.uk

In comp.editors dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (DWT) wrote:

> G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) wrote in <3159@ucl-cs.uucp>:
> 
> > Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very
> > least, is now ubiquitous.
> 
> I've never understood why people who prefer vanilla ice cream to
> chocolate ice cream react to others' preference for chocolate by
> saying, "Oh?  I like vanilla better myself," yet those who prefer
> chocolate react to others' taste for vanilla with, "You're crazy!
> You're insane!  Everyone knows that chocolate is better!"  ... vi
> users ("Use emacs if you want.") to emacs users ("vi SUCKS!").
> 
> If you have a single-user system and don't want vi on it, rm it.  No
> one can legimitately question your right to do that.

rm!  How the hell can you use rm?  Everybody knows that rm is useless!
---
richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
An Emacs user with nothing against vi.

berger@imag.fr (Gilles BERGER SABBATEL) writes:

>>Why does vi(1) live on? The EMACS interface, at the the very least, is
>>now ubiquitous.

Because not many of us have 50 Gigabytes RAM !

>Why on earth should we install emacs on our machines, and call it to use
>a vi emulation, while the real vi is faster and 7 times smaller?

I Agree

>What vi folks like with it is that it is a simple editor (neither a
>newsreader, nor a mailer, nor a debugger, nor a coffee machine...), and
>that most movements are obtained with a single keystroke (no CTRL, no
>SHIFT), and it is moded - yes, I like it!

I Agree, but you always have the !! capability!


>What vi lacks is a more powerfull macro-language, and multi-buffer features.
>Perhaps multiple windows, and certainly some X features (windows, mouse...).
>Editors much more simple than emacs provide such features (such as microemacs,
>or vile).

If anyone wants multiple files displayed AT ONCE, try XVI (not for X windows)
in editors dir of simtel msdos archives.  The source is available there
and compiles on UNIX (has makefiles for cray, bsd, sysv, etc).  Not bad,
tho could use some extending!  The PC version is even mouse-aware!


David T. Bath	Email:dtb@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au	Phone:03-3477511
Global Technology Corporation, 179 Grattan St, CARLTON, VIC, 3153, AUSTRALIA
"Failure to emulate is the best revenge" - Marcus Aurelius

-- 
David T. Bath	Email:dtb@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au	Phone:03-3477511
Global Technology Corporation, 179 Grattan St, CARLTON, VIC, 3153, AUSTRALIA
"Failure to emulate is the best revenge" - Marcus Aurelius