Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!uswnvg!dfpedro
From: dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Xedit is better than vi and emacs
Message-ID: <718@uswnvg.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 91 16:22:14 GMT
References: <2197@pdxgate.UUCP>
Lines: 35

In article <2197@pdxgate.UUCP>, jonr@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Jon Edmund Richards) writes:
: 
: 
:             My boss made the statement last week that, in many ways,
:           Xedit is better than vi and emacs.  We argued about this
:           for awhile with the end result that by Friday I have to
:           present a paper either supporting my belief that Xedit
:           has outlived its usefulness or a description of how Xedit
:           surpasses my favorite Unix editors.
: 
:             Does anyone have any good supporting arguments I could
:           provide?  I would love nothing better than to convince my
:           boss that it's time to learn vi or emacs.

Maybe this isn't about which editor is the "best".  I have no experience 
Xedit but, maybe we can discuss why an editor needs to be better than 
another, and why your boss feels the need for you to write a paper.

If you have both editors, why the discussion?  You use the editor you like
and let him use the editor he likes.  Proving him wrong doesn't seem 
very productive to me.  I would be tempted to address the issue of why vi 
is the editor you choose to use instead of why your choice is better 
his choice.

If my boss was forcing me to use an editor I did not prefer just because
he preferred it, there would be trouble.  If this is the case for you, then
addressing your personal reasons for using vi might make sense.  

Too much time is wasted discussing which editor is "best".  The best
editor is the one which you are comfortable with and contributes to
your productivity.



	dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP