[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: bi

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Rick wrote:

> I do search and replace in Xemacs all the time. I'm fairly sure that
> regular emacs will do it too.
> My point is if Linux is moving forward in time why do vi-hards get
> up-in-arms about it being left out. vi is good for what it is. I
> think it should move into the GUI world since it is really too much
> for this application. To fix a broken install you need a simple,
> self-contained, small editor.

vi *IS* a simple, self-contained, small editor. its "bells & whistles"
are in its command set and powerful features, not in time-wasting,
memory-hogging frills like graphical user interface.

also, its user interface is consistent with other important/useful
programs like less and more....

> If I want to do wordprocessing I'll use Xemacs. I use X because I like
> it.

text editing and word processing are two completely different

if i want to edit a config file or some source code or write an email
message i'll use a text editor.

if i want to write a letter or report or something i'll use a word
processor (actually, for anything over a page or so i'll enter the
bulk of the text in a text editor and then load it into a WP for final

> Why go back to a command shell editor when I can use a GUI editor?

vi isn't a 'command shell editor'. it's a text editor. 

one good reason for using a simple text editor like vi is so that you
don't have to take your hands off the keyboard to use the mouse.

> vi had it's time. Time to move on. There are better editors now.

no, there are no better editors.  there are programs which are better suited
to different tasks (like word processing) but you cant beat a simple text
interface for editing text.


Reply to: