Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!kwanon!andy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Xedit is better than vi and emacs
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.092319.4753@research.canon.oz.au>
Date: 7 Apr 91 09:23:19 GMT
References: <2197@pdxgate.UUCP> <3817@uc.msc.umn.edu> <1991Apr4.172610.27932@mtu.edu> <3825@uc.msc.umn.edu> <91096.084712QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Sender: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Reply-To: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Lines: 17

In article <91096.084712QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Alan Thew) writes:
>Can we give this "my editor is better than your editor" thing a break
>please or create an alt.editor.flame group and let comp.editors be
>useful?
>

Here, here. Why not change the tone to more of "What is good about
editor X and how can we do that in editor Y" (with no religion).
Xedit does some great things (the "all" macro is extremely useful
to name but one feature), its very well integrated with CMS and Rexx
is a great language for writing editor macros in (apart from other things).
Sure xedit has problems but so do all editors. Given the constraint of a
327x terminal I think it does a pretty good job.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au) Canon Info. Systems Research Australia
"X: 2. An over-sized, over-featured, over-engineered window system developed
at MIT and widely used on UNIX systems." from the jargon file.