Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!joshi From: joshi@cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: vi Alternative Required Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 90 19:26:29 GMT References: <1616@ukpoit.co.uk> <109752@convex.convex.com> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 84 tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >In article <1616@ukpoit.co.uk> ian@ukpoit.co.uk (Ian Spare) writes: >> >>I think the problem is that they find productivity plumments when using >>3 editors , namely vi , wordstar and IBM ISPF editors. >You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. >You cannot make someone learn if they are intent upon ignorance. >Let them suffer. Sorry, I've lost sympathy with cretins. I recognize ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think I lost sympathy with the UNIX fanatics, especially who do not want to even see what some of the better designed editors (read ergonomic editors) have to offer. I think you are totally mistaken. The point of the matter is that vi sucks in sveral ways, where as ISPF is a truly wonderful editor. You do not have some "magic" stuff going on all the time, you do not have to learn regular expressions, join (J) works the way it is supposed to work, defaults for function keys are standardized and more intuitive (and are very easy to change), macros can be written using the ISPF CLIST language (which is a shell on TSO) and is much better than in vi, one can integrate ISPF Screens into the macros much easily than vi, one can replace/find within certain column range (you do not have to count but you can do so if you wish), one does not have to count (a la FORTRAN FORMAT statement) how many times a particular command has to be repeated (though one can do it if one so wishes), line labels are visible, line labels can be upto five characters (unlike the vi's stupid one character labels) and one can exclude certain number of lines which enables one to get a nice overview of the entire program/document/report. No wonder the users are revolting against vi. I am not in any way saying that ISPF Editor is "the" editor, but it has a lot of good features which I would like to have in my UNIX editor. I have not seen these features either in emacs or in vi. Now, there are some features of emacs and vi which I would like to have in ISPF Editor. They are named buffers, passing a marked region through a filter, multiple windows (ISPF provides for two and 90% of the time that was enough for what I was doing - and I was NOT repeat NOT a casual user). These can be done in the editor through macros but I would rather have them as standard features. Also, the regular expression stuff is a bit weak in ISPF. >this is harsh, and that a more tactful way of communicating this would >have to be found. Using vi => frustration => Harshness towards fellow human beings. :-) >I've seen lots of secretaries using vi to write complex papers in troff >with eqn and tbl. You haven't heard what some of the sceretaries here have to say about vi. >operator or progammer needs something that hold their hand more. These >people are just being lazy. Don't let them make you go through a lot >of work just because they don't want to. What is wrong in an editor that holds hands of a casual user who does not need to do very exotic things but provides for the power users too? Is it wrong to have reasonable and sensible defaults, more intuitive function key assignments, more intuitive mnemonics and better user interface? >Tom Christiasen tchrist@convex.com convex!tchrist Anil Joshi (joshi@cs.uiuc.edu) >"With a kernel dive, all things are possible, but it sure makes it hard > to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning." (me) "We are responsible for what we are. Whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, then it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be in the future, can be produced by our own present actions. We have to know how to act." - Swami Vivekananda, Late Nineteenth Century Indian Philosopher -- "We are responsible for what we are. Whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, then it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com