Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njin!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!ken
From: ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Xedit is better than vi and emacs
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.142730.7562@njitgw.njit.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 14:27:30 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.034246.13274@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Apr18.135129.16408@njitgw.njit.edu> <1991Apr21.011316.13111@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Sender: news@njit.edu
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu

In article <1991Apr21.011316.13111@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>setmode(SOAPBOX);
:My brief encounter with Amdahl's vi-on-a-3270 left me with the notion
:that it was a typical compromise:  a combination of the worst features
:of two perfectly good alternatives.  I don't think anyone has even tried
:an Xedit-on-a-Teletype.  

IBM's AIX/370 has a vi mode for the 3270 screen, believe me, it ain't
pretty at all!  I have used Xedit in line mode, its, um, interesting.
Not as bad as vi on a 3270, but still pretty bad.

Kenneth Ng
"No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG