Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mayoff From: mayoff@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Mayoff) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: spelling from within vi Message-ID: <984@latexo.cs.utexas.edu> Date: 8 Nov 90 23:01:43 GMT References: <1990Oct31.153710.7865@cec1.wustl.edu> <1990Nov7.005405.461@investor.pgh.pa.us> Distribution: na Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin Lines: 65 >Why don't you just "go with the flow", "get with the program", "get >up, get into it, get involved" (--James Brown) and use GNU Emacs' vi >(or vip) mode, and its ispell interface. Argh. I've been reading this newsgroup for quite a while now, and have been pleasantly surprised that no one has made a comment like this - until now. It really, *really* offends me when people say stuff like this. I get loads of this stuff around here: people nag me about how vi is inferior, why don't I use emacs, etc. Well, I *know* vi is "inferior" in many ways - it's not programmable, it doesn't have online help, and it doesn't support lines of greater than 1024 characters, to name three ways. Does any of that bother me? Well, I'd like to use a more programmable editor, but I hate lisp, so emacs is out on that count. I don't usually need online help myself, but others do, so yes, emacs wins there. Lines greater than 1024 characters? Files like that are usually binary in nature, in which case I use od, edit the dump, and use a little utility I wrote to turn the dump back into a file; emacs is out there. Anyway, I've used vi-mode and vip-mode in emacs. Forget vi-mode; hitting escapes puts you back into pure emacs. vip-mode is only slightly better. The problem is that vi isn't just an editor, it's an editing philosophy. emacs is not just an editor, either; in fact, it's not just an editing philosophy; it's a kitchen sink. If I want to run towers of hanoi, I'll write it (I did, once, in BASIC, no less, with animation). However, I don't often want to run towers. If I want to use eliza, I'll type it in from More Basic Games (or whatever the title is, that one from Creative Computing, ya know?). I never really want to use eliza, either, though. As for the ispell interface, doesn't ispell already have an interface? (Yes.) Why not use it? Same with mail, mh, news, etc. Sure, emacs has interfaces for all those, but I'd rather type "mail" than escape-meta-alt-ctrl-shift-m (or whatever, you get the idea) if I want to read mail. I don't feel a need for any of that stuff in my text editor. What I want in my text editor is a command set that's fast to type, and editor functions that execute quickly. vi wins big in both of these - having to use control keys simply to move around on the screen (possibly the most common operation in a text editor, aside from entering text) is a loss in my book. And since vi was original written for use on 300 baud terminals (or was it 110?), you can be pretty sure that the output functions are darn near optimal. I know I'm going to get bitten with a comment about how old vi is because of this, though. Anyway, emacs isn't a religion (I hope). Neither is vi. Please, *please*, don't try to win "converts" on this newsgroup. People who read this are either hoping to get an answer to a (usually) simple question, or are discussing various features of editors; neither group, I think, wants to be "preached" to (I know I don't) about which is the better editor. Rational arguments should be the rule. People who become dissatisfied with vi will switch to emacs when they wish to, and not because someone said they aren't "with it"; the rest of us don't want to hear it. Flame-retardation suit donned. BTW, here's my macro for using ispell from within vi: " *c to check the spelling with ispell. map *c :w^V^M:!ispell %^V^M:e!^V^M^V^M -- /_ rob /_ Fun things to do with UNIX (#12 in a series): / cd /dev; cat mouse # Try this on a Sun. Really!