Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!ism780c!mikep
From: mikep@ism780c.isc.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: vi vs. emacs
Message-ID: <12650@ism780c.isc.com>
Date: 5 Aug 88 22:28:53 GMT
References: <16697@brl-adm.ARPA> <12496@ism780c.isc.com> <1186@ficc.UUCP> <12604@ism780c.isc.com> <1208@ficc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 20

In article <1208@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
 >In article ... mikep@ism780c.isc.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
 >> Well, you could write a lisp function to do it.
 >Funny, this Emacs doesn't seem to have lisp. In fact, it's got a sort
 >of forth-like language. Oh, this one over here doesn't even have that
 >much. Hmmmm... are we comparing vi to GNU Emacs only, or to all
 >Emacsen? I dare say that GNU Emacs might make a believer out of me...
 >if only I could run it on this poor old 80286.

Well, that's like saying: ``I would run UNIX, but I can't get it
to work on this here 6502.''  For certain machines (ie, VAX-class and
above, and also 386 and 68K boxes), I use GNU.  If I'm going to
work on a Intel 8052 monitor, I don't complain that GNU is a
bad editor because it won't fit on something with 1K of RAM.

-MikeP
-- 
Michael A. Petonic				mikep@ism780c.isc.com

        ``When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby?''