NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/editors/2715

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-10 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!rock!concert!rutgers!modus!gear!cadlab!martelli
From: [e-mail] (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: summary (short!-): xvi vs vile
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:27:30 GMT
Organization: CAD.LAB S.p.A., Bologna, Italia
Lines: 28


Here's what little info I received on my xvi/vile comparison request.
xvi is: smaller, a bit more vi compatible (.exrc);
vile is ported to more platforms, has some X support, is faster, has
    no maximum line length

Some of xvi's current problems (e.g. porting to Hp/ux) will be solved
in a patch very soon.  Vile's author claims the pcvile version is not
very well-tested and might be unreliable.

From personal observation, I notice that vile's incompatibilities are
mostly in the field of macros and such, and it does them better (IMHO)
than vi (a semireadable command language!).

As you see, not much to go on, and to make choice even more difficult,
[e-mail] says he's developing a THIRD program that will
be vi-compatible and offer windowing (as well as many, MANY other
extra features); it will be written from scratch in C++, although a
C version may also be distributed for people lacking a C++ compiler;
contact him directly for further info on that program.

Me, I still haven't decided... well, MUCH better to have the problem
of many good and similar editors, than not knowing where to find ONE!
So, thanks to the contributors to my survey, and MOST particularly
to the authors of vile, xvi, and further possible vi enriched clones!!!
--
Email: [e-mail]                   Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360
CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia   Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294