Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!gatech!mcnc!rti!h-three!james
From: james@h-three.UUCP (james)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: emacs vs vi
Message-ID: <252@h-three.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jul 88 11:48:01 GMT
References: <16544@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: h-three Systems, Research Triangle Park,  NC
Lines: 32

[
    I have conceded long ago to our local emacs fanatic that emacs is much more
    powerful and perhaps a better editor than vi.  I have not switched.  I just
    don't fee like learning a new set of commands.
]

I have often heard emacs described as 'a mono-modal editor'.  And the largest
complaint I have heard about vi is the 'constant switching of modes' (which
I never even notice, and never thought was a problem when I learned vi).

I've been following this emacs vs. vi stuff and seen this sort of thing
a lot about emacs:

> documentation of all variables and funtions, as well as info-mode, which is
    ...
> get dired mode (the ability to edit/delete/rename/copy files in somewhat
> of a menu mode), integrated make, grep, and shell mode, as well as a
> nifty mail mode that undigests those long messages for you. I could
    ...

I have also heard of vi-mode, vip-mode, 'normal'-mode, gnu-emacs, micro-emacs,
unipress emacs, ....



I've never heard two vi users argue about which version of vi was better :-)


-- 
=============================================================================
James P. Sutton
h-three Systems Corporation             {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti!h-three!james
Research Triangle Park, NC              (919) 549-8334