emacs is decent once i install the lisp implementation of vi
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 1:21
Microsoft Word.
Seriously.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 3:11
vim
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 7:31
[insert religious war side-taking/troll encouragement here]
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 9:25
nvi
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 9:33
emacs if fat and ugly
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 10:20
Emacs-ing Mother Fuckers Are Cock Suckers
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 17:53
fuk you guys are nerds
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 21:52
Emacs is cool, too bad its learning curve is a brick wall covered with spikes. Vim ftw!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 22:39
pico is superior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 4:14
echo is superior.
serves you right for getting your code wrong
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 5:18
is it just me or does anyone else hate when emacs screens down/up instead of moving line by line? (noting that of course pgup and pgdown should move up and down by screens)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 6:35
Ahh, the emacs operating system.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 6:36
I only wanted an editor...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 6:45
emacs and vim are both sodding old editors with fugly interfaces. To edit on Linux, I use Kate. If only it was faster. To edit on Windows, I use UltraEdit, which is my favourite editor.
Does anybody know of decent (decent as in not 30 years old, example of decent is Kate) console editors for either Linux (console) or Windows (Win32 console)? I ran out of them, I haven't seen any decent one for Linux and the text-mode ones for Windows are old 16 bit editors (not Win32).
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 6:52
>>16
nano works fine for me on Linux. Nice and lightweight.
I set KDE up so that it uses gvim instead of the usual kate editor widget. :D
I think many people fail to realise the power of such "old" editors - they probably do much more than you think they do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 1:45
Whether or not the old editors are powerful, they take a very long time to learn, and are possibly unmasterable for most people. Browsability and intuitiveness in an interface is something that both vi and emacs, even in their most modern incarnations, don't really have much of. (emacs is slightly better in this sense because it defaults to be non-modal; easier to understand than vi's smorgasboard of one-letter functionality) They were very good for their era, but today training time is a very important factor and they are deficent in that area.
I use the Python IDE, Idle, as a general-purpose text editor sometimes. That or nano.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 2:34
I like nedit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 3:07
>>20
A craftsman is expected to know his tools. If you want power, learn how to use an editor. Easy to figure out != easy to use.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 3:55
vi is insanely complex but the good thing about it is that it keeps your programming skills sharp especially when dealing with regular expressions. become 1337 at search and replace haha. But it has this giant learning curve...
BTW-vim FTW
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 4:59
>>19
And I think you may be failing to realize these editors are 20+ years into the past, and their power is also available in modern, decent interface editors. For example, Ultra Edit supports advanced column editing, regex seaerch and replace, macros, UTF-8 and UTF-16 conversion, incremental search, custom keys, various ways of handling tabs and indentation, bracket matching, multiple clipboards, multiple undo/redo, custom coloring, and more. The difference between UltraEdit and VIM is that the former is much, much easier and faster to learn (therefore more productive), and easier to learn how to do the advanced stuff. Besides, by using standard keys, you already know how to move and do all the basic operations.
BTW, question: does Nano support the standard keys for movement, selection and clipboard?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 5:13
>>24
Once again easy to learn != easy to use. Being able to do things in a few keystrokes is way easier and faster - and therefore more "productive" than clicking your way through menus as most modern editors seem to expect you to do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 6:44
Using 20+ year old editors makes you cool. Sure, I could use BBEdit or "Ultra edit" but thats just no fun. Pretty interfaces are for the weak.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 6:47
>>25
Uh, what are you talking about? Don't tell me you actually expect users to highlight a file with the mouse, waiting for it to scroll, then click "Edit", then "Copy"... Menus are there for the stuff you do less often and thus do not remember. In fact, that's why I'm so interested in (pseudo) standard keys in decent editors. In a decent editor, what I've just said is done with Ctrl+Home, Shift+Ctrl+End, Ctrl+C. What's good is this doesn't work in my riced emacs or shit; it works in any decent editor from Notepad to PSPad, from UltraEdit to BabelMap.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 6:55
>>27
That's great, you can copy and paste with the keyboard. You can even move from the start of a file to the end. What an awesome editor. IS THAT IT?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 8:03 (sage)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
O SSAGE
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 8:24
>>28
Why yes, that would be it. Add regex search & replace, color highlighting, line numbers and folding, and that covers it.
If I need to do anything more fancy I'll throw a 30-second hack together in perl or ruby rather than regurgitate some arcane commands I can barely remember that are also completely useless elsewhere. Commands that took months to master (did you get those months back in added productivity?).
The common case is just that: common. You're an idiot for wasting your time, and now expect we should too? Besides, what kind of programs are you writing where your precious shortcuts make any difference in productivity?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 9:00
>>30
You don't need to know all the vi/emacs commands to do what you said either: C-< C-<space> C-> M-w, in emacs, or 1GyG in vi. It should only take you about one day, and not months, to learn these basic commands in either editor.
Also, you can still write your perl or ruby scripts to do your more complex things, if you don't want to learn elisp.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 13:17
>>30 You're an idiot for wasting your time, and now expect we should too?
I would make the same accusation of you.
Besides, what kind of programs are you writing where your precious shortcuts make any difference in productivity?
Doesn't matter what I'm writing; if it involves spending a lot of time editing text I don't want to be wasting time doing things the long way round.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 20:44
I would make the same accusation of you.
Except I didn't waste my time. This was the learning curve for my editor of choice: five minutes.
I don't want to be wasting time doing things the long way round.
Seems to me that learning an arcane syntax that is completely useless anywhere else is the long way around. How much of that wasted time that you spent learning will you get back? How much time do you waste looking up references for that syntax when inevitably you've forgotten something? How long does it take you to think up that l33to one-line hax that does what you want? Why couldn't you just sanely delegate it to a scripting language instead?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 20:46
>>31
My first post in this thread was >>30. This is a general criticism of the emacs and vi mentality.
BTW, vi > emacs
It should only take you about one day, and not months, to learn these basic commands in either editor.
a) That's the basic part. People who brag about the power of their editors inevitably aren't using basic features.
b) That's still a day too long.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 6:37
an arcane syntax that is completely useless anywhere else
Where is this "anywhere else" you keep talking about? I spend the majority of my time editing stuff, whether it be code or config files. My editor is more important to me than my desktop.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 7:00
Exactly what I said. A scripting language is useful for more than just processing text; it's a transferrable skill. Emacs and vi commands? Well...
Emacs is at least somewhat sane here, being built on an extensible lisp engine, but vi is pure bollocks.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-19 6:31
I write the code straight into the harddrive sectors with dd.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-19 6:45
edlin FTW
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-19 21:13
emacs ftw
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-19 21:36
I use GUI editors, which are all fundamentally better than the CLI. Failing that, I use nano because I can't remember all those crazy key commands and it shows them at the bottom.