Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!cns!dltaylor
From: dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Decent Unix Editors!! (one man's opinion, anyway)
Message-ID: <917@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 91 19:59:44 GMT
References: <CPETTERB.91Apr22112807@mickey.glacier.sim.es.com> <T0XA4Y@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991Apr23.155426.18260@cs.umn.edu> <1991Apr25.022931.29753@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: NCR Corp. SE-San Diego
Lines: 18

In <1991Apr25.022931.29753@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>Nope, learn them both. Emacs has feature power, view windowing, good
>much better for code, vi is much better (teamed with some decent text

BUT, I can run the vi funtionality in emacs, if I'm perverse enough ;-).
Have you ever noticed that even MICROEMACS has the ability to run ANY
unix filter program on a buffer?  Even "sed" and "awk" scripts.  IMHO,
having been forced to use "vi", at places that wouldn't let me install
microemacs, and used "real" emacs whenever that was available, I'll
take emacs, micro or full, every time.

>Neither one of them has a file/buffer access mechanism or multi-file
>_really_ fast simultaneous edit capability worth warm spit, though each

Hey, a TECO fan!  Is the AmigaDOS version any good?  Is there a version
for V.4?

Dan Taylor