Tue Jan 13 22:24:47 PST 2004
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:54:00AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 03:42, Jim Richardson wrote:
> > I tried emacs, I try emacs every few months, I stick with vim. Just the
> > way it is I guess.
> That's a little like saying, "I tried a Nissan, I stick with my home
> stereo." Cars have radios, but one does not buy or avoid buying a car
> because of the radio, unless you simply don't care about how good or bad
> the car is in all other respects.
> Mind you, I am not much of an Emacs fan, but my reasons for not liking
> it are not based on its being slow (emacs was slow on 68000s, but on
> hardware from 5 years ago it screams); my preference for vi / ed / cat /
> perl / edt / edln as a text editor; or the idea that it "does too much".
> Emacs is a step beyond the simple Microsoftish IDE, attempting to absorb
> every activity into a single tool. Think of it as Gnome designed for
> ascii terminals.
> vi on the other hand is a fairly simple, but powerful text editor. It
> does one thing well, and that is to be applauded, but I don't think it
> can be fairly compared to a tool like Emacs.
> On a daily basis, I use them both, but for very different things.
# manlyedit -- because emacs and vi users are pussies.
echo "Usage: echo NEWLINE | manlyedit FILE LINENUM # you stupid twit"
if test $# -lt 2; then
sed -e "$2s/.*/$input/" < $1 > $1.new
mv $1.new $1
- Jason Last known location: 1.2 miles northeast of Union City, CA
A singular instrument worn at the end of a human arm and
commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
More information about the linux-elitists