Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mtxinu!shore From: shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: vi Alternative Required Message-ID: <1990Dec12.064725.9359@mtxinu.COM> Date: 12 Dec 90 06:47:25 GMT References: <1616@ukpoit.co.uk> <7471@castle.ed.ac.uk> <4448@lib.tmc.edu> Reply-To: shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley Lines: 24 [] I think you're missing the point. Every system has its own idiom, and those idioms should be respected wherever possible. Failure to do so results in awkward, inappropriate user interfaces, redundant functionality, and a haphazard environment. Just because ISPF works marvellously well in an MVS environment doesn't mean that it's an appropriate editor or toolset for other operating systems. Similarly, just because you aren't yet familiar with the idioms of some other operating system, don't assume it's incorrect because it doesn't respond when you use the conventions you know from the one you grew up with. The old adage "sloppy workers blame their tools" is probably an overstatement, but it really does seem to me to be unreasonable to say "{vi,Unix,whatever} can't do x" when you really don't know that for a fact. Me, I use emacs for some things, vi for other things, ed for yet other things, and dd for those special moments when all I have is a kernel, a shell, fsck, newfs, and dd. I have consistently been impressed with the amount of real work I can get done quickly, efficiently, and with a minimum of fuss (*and* without running IEFBR14) by learning how to use the tools in the spirit and idiom in which they were designed. -- Hardware brevis, software longa Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore