Re: [FLAME] using editors = muscle memory [WAS: Re: Full-screen editor in /bin]
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:42:01AM +0900, marshal@h9.dion.ne.jp wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Kenrick <chrisk@aurema.com> writes:
>
> Chris> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:18:12PM +1000, CaT wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:13:24PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, ben wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > for *nix-based editors, nothing works for me like vi,
> >> particularly > > because of the fact that a whole lot of vi is
> >> invoked in exactly the > > same way as a whole bunch of
> >> everything else in *nix. it's minimal, > > the learning time is
> >> almost nothing, and the thing has all the power > > (and more)
> >> that i ever need.
> >> >
> >> > Well, vi has struck me as perversely obscure, too, but since
> >> you and a > couple of others (offlist) have suggested I give
> >> _it_ another try, I > shall.
>
> Chris> Yeah, vi starts off seeming pretty weird, but grows on you.
> Chris> I fairly much settled on vi since pretty much any Unix or
> Chris> Unix like box has a copy installed by default. emacs seems
> Chris> similarly unintuitive, but can do just about anything you
> Chris> want once you know how.
>
> This is getting into a emacs vs vi flame-fest, so it's time to start
> the BBQ. ^_^
>
Well, OK, intuitive is partly a function of "it's like something I've
used before", be that muscle memory or a menu system. As for an emacs
versus vi flame war, I virtually implied that emacs is more featureful
than vi, even though I'm a vi(m) fan. Plus I mentioned an alternative
(nedit) in the bit you snipped.
I'm certainly not an editor bigot, and would hate to be mischaracterised
as one. Reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of certain editors
does not equal flamewar IMHO... The one true editor does not exist.
- Chris
Reply to: