[Gllug] vi vs emacs (repeat)
Steve Nelson
sanelson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 11:56:56 UTC 2005
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
More information about the GLLUG
mailing list