[Gllug] vi vs emacs (repeat)

[Steve Nelson]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:25:58 +0000, Richard Jones <rich at annexia.org> wrote:

> <quote>
> To win a bet I wrote a set of vi macros that let vi simulate a Turing
> Machine.  Since Turing Machines are universal computational devices,
> this should settle the editor wars debate for once and for all.
> 
> Other editors may have better user interfaces than vi, but they are
> certainly no more "powerful".
> </quote>

Very cool!

On the interfaces thing, this always interests me.  I'm not sure what
classifies as a 'good' interface - what are the critera? Who defines
them?  I find vi keybindings to be so natural that I use them wherever
I can, and frequently miss them when they're not available - for me
the vi interface is superb.

Similarly, I use ratpoison - I find the interface this presents to be
as fast, intutive and convenient as anything else I have found, and
frequently dislike using other 'friendly' alternatives.  I use  the
mouse when I *have* to - eg to highlight text in a browser, or to
click on hyperlinks - other than that I want my hands on the keyboard.

I also fail to understand how windows (in any incarnation) can be said
to have a good interface - it always seems illogical (which reminds me
of a cartoon I saw the other night:
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/images/comics/20021126.gif ), slow,
poorly thought-out and clumsy to me.

Now take a mythical user, and assume they've not been taught that
windows is the benchmark - what's a good interface?

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug