From kragen@dnaco.net Sun Sep 6 12:49:27 1998 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:49:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Kragen To: systalk@ml.org Subject: Re: [ST] Is it just me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Keywords: X-UID: 1683 Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lars Hellsten wrote: > If you find vi archaic, try vim 5.x. It's not archaic at all, and even for > the simplest things, I find it much more efficient than anything else. Using vim still requires learning enough of the vi command set to not have to pause to remember commands. Its only advantage over vi itself is that it seems to understand cursor keys more reliably. :) (I use vim all the time, actually. I wrote a script called 'tim' that automatically sets textwidth=72, and I've been very happy with that -- it has supplanted my use of Pico for easy text editing on machines where vim is already installed.) (I haven't bothered to install vim anywhere except on my WinNT machine at work, where the alternative is Notepad. On my ISP's and employer's Suns, I use vi, and on my Linux machine at home, vim was just another package to select when I installed everything.) > Ugh... don't really like any of them. Emacs I respect more than the others > though, since it does provide as much power as vi. I just personally > prefer vi from a usability standpoint. Emacs provides quite a bit more power than vi, really. It provides so much power, I didn't bother to install it on my machine at home due to the amount of disk it would use. :) Kragen -- Kragen Sitaker I don't do .INI, .BAT, .DLL or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files. I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby. -- Fritz Anderson