[Sussex] Straw Poll

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 28 April 2003 at 15:56 Geoff Teale wrote:
> Indeed.  It is noteable that I generally do all my 
> word-processing in Emacs as well though - Emacs is
> flexible enough to do _word_processing_ (it has
> modes specifically for word-processing) it's just not a 
> WYSIWYG layout tool (this seems to become part of the
> role of a word processor now, it always used to be a
> different application - that seemed to happen around
> the time people started adopting Windows and moving
> away from DOS).

There is no argument from here.  Emacs is very powerful.
Far to powerful some would say.  If you're becoming a 
Emacs power user then when are you going to replace 
"/bin/bash" for you account in /etc/passwd with
"/usr/bin/emacs"?
  
> Esc drops you out of insert mode, the Z's were
> capitalised, though I actually had to think  very
> hard about it and it may well be wrong, 

This shows your age.  being able to move around in 
insert mode is a new feature (new in my terms).  When
I started using vi if you tried to use the arrow keys
you got strange bits of text in your file.  This teaches
one to hit ESC when you finish you're insert.  My starting
point is always from command mode.

> it's a key sequence that is coded into my muscle memory!

Oh do I know vi muscle memory well.  When someone comes up
to me and asks a vi question I have to type in the air before
I can tell them what they want to know.

> Thats true, and it also true to say that I use emacs without 
> ever once using the cursor keys or the menus, but that is
> something that comes with time - to a new user the easiest
> command-line editor I have seen is GNU Nano.  

Agreed.  I don't use menus in XEmacs much myself (although I 
do use the cursor keys a far bit (not that I have to I just
find it natural - more muscle memory again).

> The point is however, times have changed, vi hasn't - vim,
> kvim and gvim exist for a reason!  I'm not really trying 
> to criticise vi, it is _very_ powerful and has a place in
> the world, I'm just suprised by it's enduring popularity.

Indeed times have changed.  But the fact that there are little
differences between vi and its clones is a problem.  Microsoft
can justly claim that Windows is the same the world over; that
it is a standard.  The differences between the vi, ps, top[as]
and the other tools is a stone that Microsoft can throw at *nix.

> Hmm, I would suggest that it would depend on what major mode 
> you are using and what what minor modes are running on it
> -very little functionality is fixed at the level provided
> by fundemental mode - in this vi and emacs differ greatly.
> It would be nice to have something a little more powerful
> in fundmental mode though.

Maybe, maybe not.  ex's substitute allows for the variable bits
of the search string to be included in the replace.  I'm not
sure that its in XEmacs's Regular Search and Replace function.
 
> > Sorry for the rant - but I haven't had a good rant on here for some
> > time now and then need overtook me. :-)
> 
> I know, I know :)  Feels good though, huh?

Oh it sure does :-)

And on 28 April 2003 at 16:03 Geoff Teale also wrote:
> Didn't say it should die, I said it should've died when 
> machines got more powerful the audience widened.  vi didn't
> evolve, but it had the user base to keep it going despite
> its problems.  

vi has evolved - new bits of functionality have been added
(like roaming around in insert mode - I remember the days when
one couldn't moved outside of the insert area).  But it hasn't
changed it's "unique" interface to do it.  If it did then it
would be a different editor.  Some companies may think it fun
to completely change the way a tool works, but Unix know better
than that: if it ain't broke don't fix it.
  
> > What many seam to have forgotten is that vi was one of, if
> > not the, first visual editor(s) around.  Before that editing
> > was done line by line.  Unix pre-dates the first VDUs (or
> > at least Thompson & Ritchie didn't have such expensive bits
> > of kit to play with).
> 
> Hmm, the latter is true, not the former.  This is noteable, 
> though.  TECO (Emacs forefather) evolved in an environment
> (MIT) where plenty of powerful hardware was available and
> VDU's had been in use for many years.

Agreed, one does program to the power of the beast available.
One only has to look at the way Outlook works when dialled in to
know that those Gigabit links to the desk in Microsoft HQ need
to be replaced with a 9600 baud PPP link :-)
 
> ooooh, handbags :)

Bet comeback on one of my rants I've seen in a long time :-D
 
> I'm not suggesting that power is a bad thing, or vi is a bad 
> editor, simply that I am suprised that people still take the
> time to learn it when they could so easily _not_ learn it.
> In the long run it pays off, but it's very painful to begin with!

Okay, I'll concede.  My first use of vi was as painful as the
rest of you (I had been using EDT on VMS before which is much
closer to Emacs than vi).

But maybe that very "painful" interface to a newbie is why it
has survived.  The sense of achievement when starts to master
it just isn't there in a "friendly editor".  I was going to say
that maybe the reason for vi's longevity was that it is still 
the only editor available on many commercial Unix boxes, but 
now I', being to think that there maybe something else here.

vi is a beast; a beast to be timed.  By taming vi one gets 
the same basic emotions that the caveman must have got from
taming the wolf.  Of course sitting next to a power vi user
(as I was when I started work) helps, 'cos one can see that 
vi can do so much more than just edit text!

Steve