Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ssyx.ucsc.edu!filbo
From: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin; NOTE NEW MAIL ADDRESS)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: WordStar-like editor: the quest continues
Summary: Responses; I'll be gone for two weeks
Keywords: WS ws WordStar wordstar paradigms
Message-ID: <9%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 89 10:18:57 GMT
References: <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> <5339@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <4095@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Sender: filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin; NOTE NEW MAIL ADDRESS)
Organization: R Pentomino
Lines: 97
Disclaimer: I >am< R Pentomino.  I speak for no other organization.

In article <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> lth@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Lars Thomas
Hansen) writes:
>Summary: Why on earth would you want WordStar?
>As it turned out, programmers want a lot more. The ability to edit several
>files at once, for example, is something I (now) demand from my editor. To
>have several views of the same file is also practical in certain situations.
The editor I use most has these capabilities.  I repeat: I DO NOT USE
WORDSTAR per se.  The editor I use most is "TPE", a descendant of "EDWIN",
by Kim Kokkonnen.  I also repeat: I would rather have simplicity and the
keyboard sequences and paradigms I'm used to, than complexity and power at
the cost of major paradigm shifts.  I further repeat that the UNIX machines
I'm using are typically loaded to the point that it is crazy to even attempt
running a large program such as EMACS.

The "WordStar" that I use, that I am looking for, has multiple windows, can
edit multiple files, has macros, undo, etc.  These remain peripheral issues
for me.  They are cute and handy but not very important.  Macros I can do
through the PC I use to communicate with UNIX.  Multiple edits I can do with
job control, if nothing else.

>You'd be amazed at the amount of trouble I go through to avoid the Turbo
>editors...
Look at the trouble I'm going to!  I'm broadcasting my unpopular views all
over the planet to try to avoid using editors I don't like.  Also, you can't
see it, but I'm editing this article with SideKick -- definitely a less than
optimal implementation of what I want, but it doesn't clash with my mind, and
it will come up over my terminal program.


In article <4095@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(Julian Cowley) writes:
>Having a WordStar clone on Unix would make it much easier for
>novices to edit files, and I'm sure it would be an instant hit
>among freely distributable editor programs.  It may not have the
>most ideal keyboard mapping, but it is extremely well-known and
>has the advantage of using the diamond pattern for the four basic
>cursor motion commands, which makes it easy to remember.  I've
>never met anyone who has used a computer for text processing and
>not known WordStar.
Substitute "microcomputer" for "computer" in the last sentence and this is
probably close to correct.  Obviously it doesn't have "the most ideal
keyboard mapping", as this is impossible given differences in keyboards,
typing styles etc.  It flows well for me, a touch-typist (not of the normal
school, but still a touch-typist).  This is something I've heard many times:
touch-typists like WordStar, others hate it.  Maybe the whole question says
something about where and how computer users have learned to type?


In article <5339@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
writes:
>BTW, now I have thrown in the towel and use Unipress EMACS on UNIX systems
>which have the license, Microemacs on UNIX systems that don't, Epsilon on
>a PC Clone, and (on few rare occasions) MINCE (an EMACS clone) on the
>old CP/M box.  Epsilon gets about 99% of the use.
You use EMACS "clones" everywhere.  I want to use WS "clones" everywhere.
I do NOT intend to "throw in the towel".  Whether there is one now, or not,
when I'm done there will be a good WS "clone" EDITOR (NOT word processor)
for UNIX.  Even if I have to write it myself.


Repeating what I'm looking for:

An editor that uses WordStar-compatible keystrokes and generally acts like
WordStar, as far as editing goes.  I do not need or want any of WS' "word
processing" features, dot commands, embedded formatting sequences, help
screens, etc.  Except the responses from people who also want WS, 90% of
the mail I've gotten has utterly confused the issues of EDITING and
IMPLEMENTATION.  I've tried to say this clearly but people don't seem to pay
attention.  WS is the recognizable name for a whole group of editors that
have entirely different implementation details, just like there are dozens
of EMACS implementations, none of which (so far as I know) actually still
runs as a collection of macros under TECO!  Of course I don't want a slow,
bulky, takes-up-half-the-screen-with-help-messages editor that writes
non-ASCII files.  I want something that acts like it at the basic editing
level.  Examples (all under MS-DOS): SideKick; Borland Turbo language
editors; MicroSoft's latest Quick language editors (I'm told); "modify
command" in dBASE III (sort of); QEDIT; XTC; EDWIN; TPE; etc.


Further information for the participants in this discussion:

I am leaving on a two-week vacation.  I will return on or near July 1st.
I'm told that my account at UCSC, which is a "guest account", may not exist
when I return.  I am asking them to forward my mail to gorn, which is not
going away, if at all possible, but I don't know if that will happen.  If
you want to correspond with me, please use the address
"filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us" or "filbo%gorn@sco.com".

I have a list of some 10-15 other people who are looking for WS for UNIX.
When I return I'll distribute what useful information I have (there is some,
and it's building up), and possibly set up a mailing group.  If no likely
candidate has come up by then I will start soliciting ideas from the mailing
group on what constitutes a good WS editor for UNIX.  Then I'll ignore them
and write what I want.  Hopefully something will turn up and I won't have to
do this.  ;-}

>Bela<