Re: An 'ae' testimony
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 02:35:37AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What doesn't ae to? As an editor for a damaged system, it seems to
> work well.
you can't yank lines. you can't cut and paste. you can't exec a program
and have the output inserted in the bufer. you don't have multiple undo
and redo. you can't pipe a block of text through a program. you can't
join lines reliably. to change anything you first have to delete the old
text and then type the new text. it's more reliable and less hassle to
just re-type an entire line than it is to edit it. you can't do regexp
search and replace. there is no way to visually distinguish between tabs
and spaces. these are just some of the basic things that are missing or
wrong in ae...there are many more, without even beginning to count the
more useful advanced functions.
ae is an adequate minimal no-frills, no-features text editor. it's
better than cat. it's even better than pico (which isn't hard). it's no
substitute for vi.
> > being restricted to a primitive editor after you have become
> > proficient with vi is akin to re-learning how to talk after having a
> > stroke..
>
> Ahem. vi non-primitive heh-heh-heh.
yes, vi IS non-primitive. do not mock what you fail to understand.
> > .you've lost some really fundamental ability which you take
> > for granted. when you know vi you don't need to remember the
> > commands, you just think about what changes you want to make and
> > (metaphorically speaking) your fingers do the rest. having to use a
> > primitive editor reduces you to hunt-and-peck typing and having to
> > think about each individual keystroke.
>
> Are vi users less capable, or more inflexible, than users of better
> editors? I think you are doing vi users a dissservice, labeling them
> so incapable and unadapting.
no, vi users are not less capable or more inflexible (and there are
no better editors -- emacs is not a text editor, it's a programmable
editing environment. if you like that kind of thing then more power to
you...but emacs is also no substitute for vi).
i thought i explained it well enough. vi is the sort of tool that when
you get good at it becomes like an extension of your thoughts - you
don't have to consciously think about HOW to do something, you just
think about WHAT you want to do and it happens.
this doesn't mean that vi users are less flexible or less capable.
it means that trying to use some other less capable editor is like
trying to edit with one hand tied behind your back and three fingers of
your remaining hand chopped off. you can do so much more with vi that
anything less is a major handicap.
i fail to see any further point in this thread. it's gone on way too
long already. the fact is that vi is a basic unix tool which should
be available....not providing it on the rescue disk when we can do so
would be absurdly laughable if it weren't so outrageously blinkered and
pedestrian.
> Anyway, every one knows that vi is primitive ;-)
i expected better of you than pointless cheap shots like this. guess i
was mistaken.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: