Re: Vim vs Elvis -- was "Mutt's Editor"
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 23:56, will trillich wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 12:51:24PM -0500, Jeff Howie wrote:
> > I cut my teeth on vim (4.x or so). and haven't looked back.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:59:06AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> > > emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
> > > how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> >
> > Not sure about that, but I would assume that vi(elvis) would be on
> > the leaner side (less features = smaller footprint?).
>
> according to packages.debian.org/vim:
>
> stable 18% vim 5.6.070-1 (309.4k)
> Vi IMproved - enhanced vi editor
>
> according to packages.debian.org/elvis:
>
> stable 17% elvis 2.1.4-1 (493k)
> A much improved "vi" editor with syntax highlighting.
>
> elvis's blue suede shoes look more piggish than vim's. nearly
> by a factor of 2? or is it just docs?
If you want vim to be really useful you need the vim-rt package as well.
I suspect that tips the balance.
Cheers,
Pann
--
geek by nature, Linux by choice L I N U X .~.
The Choice /V\
http://www.ourmanpann.com/linux/ of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
Reply to: