Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ames!xanth!mcnc!ecsvax!dukeac!wolves!ggw
From: ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Programmer's Environment
Summary: hidden costs of supporting other editors
Message-ID: <1Rrtmf#6GQdGT=ggw@wolves.uucp>
Date: 21 Jun 89 02:51:42 GMT
References: <2494481@<14810> <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1133@vsi.com> <4726@alvin.mcnc.org>
Lines: 24

In <4726@alvin.mcnc.org> Steve Lamont wrote:
>  In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
>  | Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact
>  | of other things like compilers, but in many environments,
>  | personal productivity is not the highest measure.
>
>What is?  Conformity?

It is not clear quite where this is going to or coming from, but an editor
war is unnecessary in response to the original question of what tools would
be usefull in a programming environment.  It should be sufficient to say that
the editor of the programmer's choice should be included.

 Also, Steve, it may be that the editor of choice is not available as a
vendor supported product.  In many situations, and becoming more common as
binary only systems become more common, only one visual editor is available
as an official product from the vendor.  In such a situation, the system
administration may not be able to deal with the headaches of supporting
a different editor.  Even if the code for the editor may be available for
"free", there are significant costs to supporting it that may not be obvious.

Most readers of these newsgroups are fortunate to have full source code
access, or at least access to some additional support.  But we tend to
forget that we are not the majority of computer users.