Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:2322 alt.flame:32205 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!se-sd!cns!dltaylor From: dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,alt.flame Subject: Re: Decent Unix Editors!! (one man's opinion, anyway) Message-ID: <918@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Date: 26 Apr 91 20:19:02 GMT References: <846.280ca9ab@vger.nsu.edu> <1991Apr25.083732.6664@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Distribution: na Organization: NCR Corp. SE-San Diego Lines: 61 In <1991Apr25.083732.6664@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >The two driving forces in its widespread use are that it is public domain... No, the biggest driving force is that LOTS OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE TO USE IT. >1) There are whole categories of desirable features either missing or so >obscure as to be unanvailable; like decent, easy to type, text chunk, >rather than file or window oriented, navigation commands; The "electric" modes are oriented to the type of text being edited. If you want wordprocessing modes, make a few functions, or macros. There can be no "missing" features, when you can create anything you want. I've used "text chunk"-oriented editors, and have disliked them all. >like useful file requestors; like buffer selection without retyping >the buffer name every time. Make macros. Bind them to keys. > sabotaging users whose destructive backspace key is not DEL but ^H by > using that for the hard wired (and nearly impossible to remap at edit > time) "help" key, I've remapped it every time, easily. By the way, that is not an original feature of emacs, but was put in later to make it easier to find. I hate it, and it ain't in mine. > and the counterintuitive and frustrating near miss on being character > oriented, as when a newline gets ignored as a self-insert when a blank > line already follows it. Actually that "feature" is new, and a BUG. Older versions of emacs don't have that stupidity, and neither does the one on my system, since the source is available to all. >3) It's scripting and macro command language is wonderfully obscure and >only loveable by people heavily into AI or text processing programming; >most Emacs users haven't a clue about Lisp, which means for most people >the macro facility is unavailable. There are TWO macro capabilities, mlisp and "do what I type now, next time I ask for it". The latter can be saved to a name, bound to a key, so that multiple macros can be on-line at any time. They can be saved in the startup file, too. >4) The learning curve is much too steep. You can sit down with a good >shrink wrap, menu oriented editor for microcomputers and everything is a >mouse selection or two away, available for instant use; it can take >months to even _find_ the emacs online help, much less be comfortable >with using it. This, I'll buy. However, if the editor doesn't do much, then there isn't much to learn, is there? I've been through way too many (well, one was too many) PC "editors" that have WordStar keymappings. I've tried the "vi" clones, but you can guess my opinion of those. I've tried to use wordprocessors as text editors, but none of them do what I want, the way I want to do it. I do use them for "wordprocessing", but NOT program entry. I use Emacs, full or micro, every time. Dan Taylor