Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!ai.mit.edu!tmb
From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Unix vs. Mainframe editors
Message-ID: <14222@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 91 09:11:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.14222
References: <1991Mar19.210035.2232@wrkgrp.COM> <1991Mar20.140959.2939@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: tmb@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 13

In article <22860@oolong.la.locus.com>, jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes:
|> I, too, am a mainframe editor bigot, although ISPF was my first preference
|> with XEDIT a very close second, since I had to use both TSO and VM in
|> my previous life and ISPF was available in BOTH environments (uhoh, I
|> can hear it now, this is the same reason that the vi bigots give for
|> using vi... it is available on ALL unix systems)... 

Just curious: what makes a "mainframe editor"? Since both "vi" and
"emacs" also run on "mainframes", just the ability to run on a mainframe
cannot be enough to be blessed with the predicate "mainframe editor".

What features do ISPF and XEDIT give you that are so sorely lacking
in Emacs?