home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!utdoe!torag!robohack!woods
- From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
- Subject: Re: So what _is_ so good about vi?
- Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
- References: <1jcoq7INN5eg@zikzak.apana.org.au> <7245@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.020355.6180@robohack.UUCP>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 02:03:55 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <7245@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> murphy@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Murphy) writes:
- > Personally, I prefer vi to Emacs because
- >
- > 1. The command sequences that I use a lot are easier to remember
-
- Matter of opinion, I've found....
-
- > 2. I don't really need everything that emacs has
-
- Maybe not today....
-
- > 3. Things I need like special configurations for TeX, fortran, shell scripts etc
- > I can do myself and I know _exactly_ what they are going to do
-
- So turn off all the magic -- ah sorry, "electric" modes.
-
- > 4. I like being rebellious - everyone else uses emacs :-)
-
- I wish! :-)
-
- > If you ask me, emacs is TOO clever. Now, micro-emacs is a different matter, but
- > they don't have that here.... (boo)
-
- Whoa! Wait a minute here. If you're talking about small emacs
- "clones" in general, then I think you're looking at things wrong. The
- real benefit of emacs is that it's so maleable. The "micro" clones
- usually lack an integral extension language, and are only of an
- advantage where "the real thing" is not usable.
-
- BTW, I'm not a fan of the "Microemacs", and I seriously suggest you
- look at some of the other clones, such as my favorite, Jove.
- --
- Greg A. Woods
-
- woods@robohack.UUCP, woods@Elegant.COM VE3TCP UniForum Canada & ECI
- +1 416 443-1734 [home] +1 416 362-XRSA [work] Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
-