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

[general_email at technicalbloke.com]

- Tethys wrote:
> 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.

Maybe a little of both, as is customary in a browser war ;) but I'm
quite serious too. Your question is predicated on the assumption that
"better terminal based editors exist" which, given that there are GUI
versions of both Emacs and Vim I don't think you have conclusively
proved. How is more functionality worse, given that resource usage is
not the problem it used to be in most situations? I accept there are
situations where terminal editors are a practical necessity, as per your
serial console argument, but I can't fathom why anyone would choose them
when they _do_ have the option of using the graphical version.


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