🚀 go-pugleaf

>	I've used both the Manx "Z" vi and PC/VI, and I've got a lot of
>	hours (lines?) logged on UNIX vi.  In my opinion, PC/VI is THE
>	way to go.  It's the real thing.  Conversely, Manx "Z" vi fell
>	short in MANY areas (like no global substitutes, for gosh sakes!).
>	The MANX editor is simply NOT vi, and not funtionally sufficient
>	as a text editor even if you don't care about vi compatibility.

>	Steve Frysinger

Steve, be careful--specify what release of 'z' you used!  The shortcoming
you mentioned (no global substitutes) went away *long* ago!  The current
release of 'z', distributed with the Aztec 3.40A compiler release, is
version 1.4, dated 11/20/85.

'Z' is, by and large, today exactly what they say it is--basic VI.  You're
missing the things you might expect--named buffers, the Lisp and NROFF
oriented positioning, etc.  Possibly the most painful shortcoming is the
fact that it must be able to fit the file being edited in its (approx.
50K) memory buffer.  (As a practical matter for source editing, this is
only rarely a problem.)  But as to the command set for normal programming,
and the current bugs (especially as of 1.4), it's VERY vi-like.

HOWEVER--PC/VI appears to be the clear winner as a true VI-like editor.
Of course, you've got to pay for it, while you get 'z' with the Commercial
Development package from Azted.

Just a closer--when you issue an opinion, positive OR negative, concerning
any commercial product to the net, please indicate the last time you actually
used it, and what release/version it was at the time.  In this particular
case, I knew that Steve must have used an old version of 'z'; but somebody
who didn't would have had obsolete information on which to make a decision.

-- 
	Dave Ihnat
	Analysts International Corporation
	(312) 882-4673
	ihnp4!aicchi!ignatz || ihnp4!homebru!ignatz