Re: [X]Emacs vs. vi[m] (was Re: Why is XEmacs better than Emacs?)

["Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu>]

tom told,
> verna@inf.enst.fr said:
> > On the contrary, Emacs is more suitable for developement purposes, and
> > actually for many other things.

> Well, vim (and gvim) is actually quite powerful for development
> purposes.  All the best (IMO) that emacs had was taken into vim already.

there's one thing missing:  indenting code.  I had no real problem 
producing a fortran-90 .vim for syntax, so the coding is nice.  And 
there seems to be a cindent mode, but i haven't figured it out.  So I 
still use emacs and tab or indent-program while writing code, but to 
edit it, i perfer vim.  And yes, that has a lot to do with leaving my 
fingers on the home row.



>   Most of my users are economists and research assistants
> writing SAS and FAME (a time-series database) programs.  They certainly
> have no need for a modal editor,

anyone suffering through SAS and it's interface needs as little 
additional pain in hteir life as possible :) For small to medium 
things, it's easier to use raw fortran than SAS--though once I realized 
that it was emulating a punch-card reader, it's bizarre rules made a 
bit more sense . . .


--