[linux-elitists] Re: vi and Emacs
Wed Jan 14 13:29:28 PST 2004
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 15:11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Greg Folkert writes:
> > On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 14:09, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > Jeremy Hankins writes:
> > >
> > > > I started using emacs for gnus, and since then I've found a few other
> > > > things I like emacs for. But if I'd been forced to use it for editing
> > > > documents I'd never have touched it -- "stock vi" or no. So I have to
> > > > agree with Aaron; calling emacs an editor is misleading. Rather like
> > > > calling Gnome a window manager, actually. ;)
> > >
> > > In my 20+ years of experience, people who don't grok lisp won't like
> > > emacs. Period.
> > And those that have to hand edit streamed files ... one great big long
> > line with no breaks, form feed or carriage returns ... tend to prefer
> > something else entirely, being that none of these: vi, jed, joe, gedit,
> > elvis, emacs, xemacs, word, notepad, edit, e, ed, edlin ... etc can
> > handle it either.
> This is not even remotely true. 22MB isn't even getting started for
The big deal for it was that emacs displayed it as only tildes a few
number and letters scattered and the "@" symbol. It open the file just
fine. I could not find a mode for xemacs/emacs that displayed it
properly. I even had a "*nix is a process that runs under emacs" person
look at one of the files. He couldn't do it either.
> > Only thing that handled a 22MB streamed file with precision and a
> > somewhat clunky interface: vim in hexadecimal editor mode.
> > So there it is the Winner: vim
Don't "feh" me young man... I use Nano :).
REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040114/4e813ad6/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists