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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-19 23:10
vim
:wq
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 10:44
Emacs Made All Creationists Stupid...
Not that they were the brightest sorta tool in the shed before they all went wacko spacko.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 11:59
Escape Meta Alt Control Shift
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 13:03
Vim sucks. Ass. And fat ones at that. So I tried emacs, and it was like a tarp. It starts out good, as in "less ancient and fugly". Then I move around and use it to fix some code, and discover emacs outdoes Office implementing Artificial Stupidity™, the technique of doing exactly what you do not want to do out of all the possible outcomes of your action. Finally I try to use more advanced features and discover they are all made of ass and poo. So I press Ctrl+M Alt+Q X J Shift+X oh wai-
So I go to another terminal and kill the stupid process.
So if we're to compare emacs or Vim, I'll take Vim, but that's like saying, I'll take bird shit over cow shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 17:24
I used nano frequently and disliked vim very much until one day I was forced to use vim (no other editor installed on the system). So I ran vimtutor and within .. I dunno .. half an hour I knew all the basic stuff. Simple editing (till that day simple editing in vim was a mystery for me), replacing of characters, words, lines, blocks, regular expressions, etc.
No months of learning and I do remember the commands. If you need so long I cant say else then you are an idiot.
Now I love vim. For big things I use Bluefish and for building Swing UIs in Java I use Netbeans but vim is perfect for small to medium scripts and conf files.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 17:31 (sage)
half an hour I knew all the basic stuff.
*snicker*
How basic is that?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-20 21:10
While I normally just ssh into my CS account and use terminal emacs, could anyone recommend a good build of it for windows?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-21 3:15
>>47
Well xemacs is available for winders. Not sure aboot proper emacs, although you could probably get it to build either with mingw or cygwin if you really wanted.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-21 3:17
>>45
I tried netbeans and found it unusable. It would take a 5 minute break for garbage collection every 5 minutes.
Nevermind getting it to build, I believe its available in cygwin.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-23 15:26
In reply to the opinion that Vi and Emacs keybindings do not transfer:
1) Vi movement is the main method of movement in most roguelike games.
2) The Emacs way of pressing one C-X combination and then another key is used in many places, GNU Screen is the one I use the most, you only use one accelerator though.
Emacs hurts my fingers, I don't want to use modifiers that much; Toggling between modes in Vim is easy if you map Escape to Caps Lock, or use the... ^o for single commands.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 3:33
I'm a Vim user, but I wanna learn emacs because I like to hack Lisp but it's a PITA editing Lisp source in Vim then switching to your Lisp interpreter, reloading the file etc when I could just run it in SLIME.
Good news is there is a Vim mode for emacs so I can use it without ruining my wrists.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 11:01
Textmate > Kate > Notepad.exe > Vim > Emacs
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 11:21
>>56
I do not see how you could consider Notepad superior to Vim?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 11:50
>>57
He put Textmate at the top of the pile, that makes him an iFag, don't pay any attention to him.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 12:01
>>58
I respect homosexuals, I do not think we should dismiss >>56's opinion just because he happens to be born with inferior genes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 12:44 (sage)
DEEP ARGUMENTATION
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 12:46
I do not see how you could consider Notepad superior to Vim?
1. Not a refurbished 70's freeware
2. Does not require a terminal emulator, can run into the normal GUI
3. Doesn't require 20 hours of learning before its power becomes self-evident
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 13:01
Not a refurbished 70's freeware
Free Software != freeware
Does not require a terminal emulator, can run into the normal GUI
GVim, dumbass.
Doesn't require 20 hours of learning before its power becomes self-evident
Yeah with notepad what you see is what you get. Which aint much. At all.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 13:51
Free Software != freeware
Sure, whatever word RMS wants you to use
GVim, dumbass.
Question was "I do not see how you could consider Notepad superior to Vim?", not "I do not see how you could consider Notepad superior to Vim or whatever faggotery somebody put on top of it to make it look like something else than an unproductive nerd toy"
Yeah with notepad what you see is what you get. Which aint much. At all.
You don't get it. Pretty much anything would be better than vim. Of course notepad.exe is quite shitty and useless for any real work. Emacs and Vim are just more useless, those relics of the pasts are only used by UNIX nerds who are proud they don't run X on their 'boxen' because they are too hardcore to need a GUI.
The rest of the world moved away from those user-hostile pieces of crap, and use powerful editors that know how to manage complexity (Kate, Textmate, BBEdit). When you actually need to do heavy text lifting, you use perl/python/ruby, not your editor, it's much faster. (Or you just pipe stuff through sed and awk if you are into retrocomputing)
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-24 16:11
Not a refurbished 70's freeware
Vim is a copy of the originally non-Free software Vi.
whatever faggotery somebody put on top of it
GVim is what is used in a GUI environment. And I can't run Notepad on a terminal, so that sucks.
user-hostile pieces of crap
Tried Cream [1]? I sure haven't.
The rest of the world moved away from those user-hostile pieces of crap... When you actually need to do heavy text lifting, you use perl/python/ruby
Amen to that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 2:14 (sage)
The rest of the world moved away from those user-hostile pieces of crap, and use powerful editors that know how to manage complexity (Kate, Textmate, BBEdit).
i can't run any of those on my router...
i can't run any of those on my router...
Why the fuck would you want to run a text editor on your router? You can network your router's file system in such a way that you can open them in editors built with the 21st century in mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:08
>>68
Sounds like overkill. In this case I'd say vi is a good idea.
But anyone who always insists on using vi, just because they sometimes use it over remote connections, is a fucking tool. Your local box is local; use an editor that isn't full of shit and fail.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:12
Sounds like overkill. In this case I'd say vi is a good idea.
Why vi instead of pico or nano, then? Because "Vi is available everywhere" yet pico and nano aren't?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:38
>>70
There's that, yes. Also, vi is a fully featured editor while pico is just a curses-ified cat.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:51
vi is a fully featured editor while pico is just a curses-ified cat.
When I actually have to remotely login somewhere and cannot find a decent text editor, last fucking thing I want is to learn about the stupid shit vi does. You just need to learn i, escape-ZZ and :q! if you ever need to us vi, but you never do. Fucking grow up, UNIX nerds, your toy is not useful and is not cool.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:56
The rest of the world moved away from those user-hostile pieces of crap... When you actually need to do heavy text lifting, you use perl/python/ruby
What editor would you write the code in ;)? Noo, not on the commandline, that is not reusable.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-25 7:59
What editor would you write the code in ;)? Noo, not on the commandline, that is not reusable.
People answered before.
Kate, Textmate, Ultraedit.