Xref: utzoo comp.sys.dec:6102 comp.os.vms:40192 comp.editors:3415 comp.unix.shell:2473 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!gatech!mcnc!rock!ralph!rbn From: rbn@ralph.uucp (Bob Boyd) Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.os.vms,comp.editors,comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: DCL and EDT for Unix? Message-ID: <1991Jun21.140924.10900@rock.concert.net> Date: 21 Jun 91 14:09:24 GMT References: <91169.171310SCHDAVZ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> Sender: news@rock.concert.net Organization: MCNC -- Center for Communications Lines: 50 It's interesting to me how this discussion started off on the topic of EDITORS -- somehow the participants so far have digressed to a discussion of the issues around learning different user interfaces to computer systems. My personal opinion ( humble or not ) about editors is that some of us can transition to a new type of editor relatively easily -- others not. I find vi to be a nuisance, especially after having used EDT and EVE+. I started to learn EMACS some time ago, but had no real need for it at the time -- so I stuck with EVE+. Now I have a need to do editing on systems that only have vi, perhaps we will put up a version of emacs since it seems to be a lot more powerful. Anyway, I am learning to get comfortable with vi. I still find it frustrating the way some things are dealt with in vi -- they seem counter-intuitive to me. My point that I am getting to is that an editor isn't the command interpreter for most people. And the command interpreter isn't the operating system. I suggest that if you can port an editor onto a different operating system you may save a lot of hassle with people having to learn everything from scratch -- command language and editors when they transition. I have seen people be very proficient in all types of different editors. Some are easier to learn. Some are easier to use(fewer keystrokes for same effect). Some are more powerful(whiz-bang programming/macro language). How to decide? If Joe/Jane User really likes editor and it can be had for the system they are being required/asked to use, why not provide it? There's nothing to be gained by beating them on the head and saying "You shouldn't prefer that editor! You should learn this other one because it comes with the system." Why should you or I be concerned about defending any editor...or proselytizing converts to it? I suggest that if there's a choice available, let the users have their choice. After all, why not? Except for cost of providing the alternative what is lost? Any person performing a trade will tend to develop a favorite set of tools that they use in doing the job -- and occasionally they may learn that there is a tool that will help them do the job more easily/faster/etc.... Then they may choose to make a change. What other views are there on this besides the ones that have been aired in this thread already "You can do it that way, but it just wouldn't be the UNIX way!" or "This way or that way, it's all about the same."? -- | Disclaimer: (is it bedda dan dat claimer?) Bob | My opinions are mine, mine, mine! Horrors that rbn@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov | anyone would confuse them with those of Unisys Unisys/EPA | or the Environmental Protection Agency! No Way!