Re: editor alternatives?
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:30:14PM -0400, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
>
> Define intuitive. Every time I sit down in front of nano I keep on typing
> C-x, C-s only to scroll-lock the screen. Why is C-x any more intuitive than
> :wq ? I think that you shouldn't throw that word around so carelessly.
It is more intuitive, because it is only one Key-combination. In vi you
have to type in one kombination for the ":", then type in the "wg" and hit
Enter after all that. The second is, that this command isn't all the time
displayed on the screen.
> Then I can't resist this: every time I sit down to type in a limited-ability
> text editor like nano, I keep on missing features such as 'cw' or 'd^' which
> give very precise editting instructions which nano simply can't do. You're
> reduced to hitting Ctrl-D a lot. That's not the sign of a very efficient
> editor. Having said all that, I think that vi-derivatives are programmer/
> engineer's editors, because they rely on the user having the ability to
> think of the result of an arbitrarily complex operation (regular expressions).
> Vi is really an text manipulator with an insertion-mode.
>
Sorry, but discussion is about an editor for newbies.
Ciao
Marco
--
Men still remember the first kiss after women have forgotten the last.
--
Marco Herrn herrn@gmx.net
(GnuPG/PGP-signed and crypted mail preferred)
Key ID: 0x94620736
Reply to: