rUBY

Is cool.

Is slow as fuck.

Fuck you........................

>>2
And your point is?

Ruby is pig.

Ruby is puts.

Only the cool h4x0rs use Ruby.

I use Ruby on a Macbook with Textmate. I feel like such a walking stereotype.

I use Ruby in Windows Vista under cygwin with E Text Editor.

Fuck haters.

I use C in VIM on FreeBSD, I feel like such a superior person to all of you fags.

>>10
you use a broken, bloated, non-free vi clone instead of the real vi, nvi, levee, elvis, or any of the other non-broken clones? you're worse than a lunixfag.

>>11
I don't think you know about vim.

>>10
This is a programming board, not a retrocomputing board, gramps.

>>13
Same thing.

I don't think you know about vim.
broken:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=278886
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/vi_diff.html

bloated:
levee-3.5a.tar.gz: 67,733 bytes
ex-050325.tar.bz2: 215,411 bytes
elvis-1.8.tar.gz: 264,789 bytes
vim-3.0.tar.gz: 468,153 bytes
nvi-1.79.tar.gz: 1,295,401 bytes
elvis-2.2_0.tar.gz: 1,439,293 bytes
nvi-1.81.6.tar.bz2: 1,758,309 bytes
vim-7.2.tar.bz2: 7,203,291 bytes

non-free:
http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/uganda.html#license
II) It is allowed to distribute a modified (or extended) version of Vim,
    including executables and/or source code, when the following four
    conditions are met:
...
    2) The modified Vim must be distributed in one of the following five ways:
       a) If you make changes to Vim yourself, you must clearly describe in
      the distribution how to contact you.  When the maintainer asks you
      (in any way) for a copy of the modified Vim you distributed, you
      must make your changes, including source code, available to the
      maintainer without fee.
...
       c) Provide all the changes, including source code, with every copy of
      the modified Vim you distribute.  This may be done in the form of a
      context diff.  You can choose what license to use for new code you
      add.  The changes and their license must not restrict others from
      making their own changes to the official version of Vim.
       d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes as mentioned
      under c), you can distribute it without the source code for the
      changes if the following three conditions are met:
      - The license that applies to the changes permits you to distribute
        the changes to the Vim maintainer without fee or restriction, and
        permits the Vim maintainer to include the changes in the official
        version of Vim without fee or restriction.
      - You keep the changes for at least three years after last
        distributing the corresponding modified Vim.  When the maintainer
        or someone who you distributed the modified Vim to asks you (in
        any way) for the changes within this period, you must make them
        available to him.
      - You clearly describe in the distribution how to contact you.  This
        contact information must remain valid for at least three years
        after last distributing the corresponding modified Vim, or as long
        as possible.

>>15
Measuring how bloated the program is by size of archive?
I think you should stop wasting your time here and go back to writing code for anonix

>>16
i'm not saying it's an accurate measurement, but when the distribution archive is more than four times as large as any of the other implementations, it's definitely bloated.
also,
-r-xr-xr-x  3 root  wheel    23040 Jun 18 03:46 /usr/local/bin/nvi
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel    46584 Oct  4 04:20 /usr/local/bin/lv
-rwxr-xr-t  1 root  wheel   187136 Dec  7  2007 /usr/local/bin/vi
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   200340 Oct  7 08:41 /usr/local/bin/vim3
-r-xr-xr-x  6 root  wheel   305964 Feb 24  2008 /usr/bin/nvi
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   483944 Apr 24  2008 /usr/local/bin/elvis
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  1688472 May  1 22:29 /usr/local/bin/vim

>>17
Maybe, just maybe BECAUSE IT INCLUDES SPELL CHECKING DICTIONARIES FOR EVERY FUCKING LANGUAGE ON THE PLANET?

Also, your vim is anorectic.

-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root   49472 2008-10-24 21:41 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1593800 2008-08-14 00:49 /usr/bin/vi (this is Vim as well)
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4646272 2008-08-14 05:47 /usr/bin/vim

>>18
And why is that? Do that many people really need spell checking in that many languages?

It would make far more sense to separate the spell checking from the rest of vim, into a separate program. Let's call this program ... oh, I dunno, "aspell" or something. Also, while we're splitting that up, we can also distribute the dictionaries for each language separately. That way the editor wouldn't require a separate spell checker to be built in, nor would it need to have every single dictionary distributed with it. Plus, there's the added benefit that you would then have the ability to use that same spell checker from other programs, so the entire system is more consistent (for one thing, if you run the spell checker from elsewhere you would still be using the same user-dictionary).

Fuck! Never mind, that's already been done.

Vim sucks.

I made a benchmark to put this matter to rest. In both case I went in edit mode, wrote the sentence "I am an expert programmer" then quitted without saving.
$ time vim
        5.95 real         0.02 user         0.00 sys
$ time elvis
        6.51 real         0.01 user         0.00 sys
If you don't know how time(1) works, it means that vim is two times slower.

>>20
two times better

>>21
Enjoy upgrading your CPU

>>20
$ time cat >/dev/null
I am an expert programmer
cat > /dev/null  0.00s user 0.01s system 0% cpu 4.880 total

Also, your vim is anorectic.
1.6M is huge, especially considering the fact that it's dynamically linked...
these are all statically linked binaries:
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0   36.7k bin/edlin freedos edlin
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0   87.1k bin/ed gnu ed
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  187.6k bin/levee http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code/levee/
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  225.6k bin/se http://www.gifford.co.uk/~coredump/se.htm
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  259.4k /bin/vi busybox
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  296.1k bin/mg http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/mg/
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  315.3k bin/vi http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0  915.6k bin/elvis
-rwxr-xr-x  1 0   0    1.1M bin/ee edbrowse, a text editor and web browser together, still smaller than a dynamically linked vim binary! (http://edbrowse.sourceforge.net/)

>>24
I feel I should point out that Elvis is also a web browser.

I feel I should point out that Elvis is also a web browser.
no ssl, no frames, no css, no javascript... not a real web browser.

$ time ed
        215.08 real         0.00 user         0.00 sys

% time ed
I am an expert programmer
?
i
I am an expert programmer
^C
?

?
exit
?
quit
?
?
?
^C
?
^C
?
^C
?

?

?

?
zsh: killed     ed
ed  0.01s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 43.809 total

>>26

Personally, I use elvis to look at pages I'm editing locally, sort of like a text-mode Dreamweaver. And for that usage, none of those things are relevant.

However, it does support frames, in a way -- it shows each frame as a link when looking at a frameset page, so you won't get stuck with some lame "this page requires frames" message.
As for the CSS and Javascript, well, yes, but MOST text mode browsers don't support that shit, and neither do many *graphical* browsers for that matter. Of the browsers (browser? as far as I know, only links even tries to do either CSS or JS, and sucks at it) that do, they only support a minimal subset of CSS1. Show me a text-based web browser that supports the entirety of the CSS 2.1 specification, including colors (at least as much as can be done on a terminal), absolute positioning, :hover, and the :first-line/:first-letter attributes, and I'll be impressed.

But yes, it does unceremoniously dump out the contents of <script> tags onto the page if they're not enclosed in <!-- --> (like they ought to be!), but I don't think that makes its ability to handle basic html irrelevant, and the fact that it does so, supports syntax highlighting, and does all of this in less than half the size of vim (not even including the massive heap of shit vim installs into /usr/share) makes it one of the better vi editors.

You're all wrong. Elvis is dead.

Elvis is a text-mode Dreamweaver.

(like they ought to be!)
Read HTML 4.01 Specification

As for the CSS and Javascript, well, yes, but MOST text mode browsers don't support that shit, and neither do many *graphical* browsers for that matter.
what

>>32
Read all suggested best practices to work around the fact that browsers do not necessarily interpret the script tag specially.

>>33
Learn more about web browsers.
Dillo and Netsurf are two examples of lightweight graphical browsers that don't do JS, and only implement some of the CSS spec; links has no CSS suport and although it can handle *some* Javascript, scripts that expect a firefox/msie-like implementation won't work right if at all.

Learn more about web browsers. Dillo and Netsurf [..]
Oh. You meant crappy toy browsers for the OMG BLOAT Anonix peanut gallery. I know about those, I just didn't think someone would consider them worth mentioning.

Dillo and Netsurf
Graphical bullshit for people who use X and a mouse.
Links > *.
(But I'll concede that lynx is decent, compared to the bloated pieces of shit that pass for browsers like firefox.)

>>35
I'm referring to the browsers that are useful for low-end kiosks, embedded systems, and other places that *aren't* standard desktops with enough power to run something such as Firefox smoothly, or where a smaller codebase can be otherwise beneficial. Not sure which dillo and netsurf you might be thinking of, and I certainly don't know what "anonix" is, but they are far from bloated. Try 'em out.

>>36
A touchscreen can act as a mouse, and it's far easier to explain how to use than a keyboard would be.

I'm thinking neither of you have ever had experience with anything but your own computer.

and other places that *aren't* standard desktops with enough power to run something such as Firefox smoothly

They have far enough power to run Links then.

A touchscreen can act as a mouse, and it's far easier to explain how to use than a keyboard would be.

No input device at all is far easier to explain than how to use a touchscreen

i use links on a device that has a touchscreen all the time... too bad no one has made a better web browser for the nintendo ds yet

>>37
Not sure which dillo and netsurf you might be thinking of, and I certainly don't know what "anonix" is, but they are far from bloated. Try 'em out.
You should brush up your reading comprehension and lurk fucking more.