[Gllug] ed vs emacs/vi, was: ed vs emacs, was: OpenMoko Neo Freerunner

[Andrew Farnsworth]

On Wed May 13 11:29 , - Tethys  sent:

>On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, general_email at technicalbloke.com
>general_email at technicalbloke.com> wrote:
>
>> I mean I can understand why people NEED terminal based editors,
>> just not why they would CHOOSE them when they have to option to
>> use a GUI editor
>
>Thus speaks a man who hasn't bothered to learn to use emacs or vi
>properly. For me, the opposite is true. Why would anyone voluntarily
>choose a GUI editor when better terminal based editors exist? OK, if
>you're stuck on a Windows box without net access, then you have to make
>do with what you've got, but that's about it. I can't work out if you're
>just trolling or genuinely ignorant. The reason people use terminal based
>editors is simply that they're usually much more powerful than their
>GUI counterparts[1]. If someone designed a GUI editor that was better
>at editing text than the popular terminal editors, I'm sure it would enjoy
>huge popularity. But the fact is, they haven't. A subjective claim, I know,
>but one I'm happy to make, given the available evidence.
>
>Plus, of course, as others have implied, your GUI editor suddenly
>becomes less than useful when you're logged in on a serial console.
>
>Tet
>
>[1] Mostly. Both vi and emacs have graphical variants, complete with
>    menu bars and other such frippery, should you wish to use them.

>From my experience, the best reason to use a GUI editor is that it is part of an
IDE which incorporates Version Control (or access there to), debugging, program
output capture and analysis, code performance analysis, and GUI Interface Editing
tools (actually editing the GUI itself in a graphical way).

I have yet to see vi/vim, emacs, or any other console based editor provide all
these functions.

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