Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:883 comp.sys.next:1090 comp.sys.mac:24542 comp.cog-eng:780
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!pbhya!whh
From: whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor (Wives)
Keywords: desktop metaphor, graphical interfaces, computing environments
Message-ID: <22627@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 88 06:30:12 GMT
References: <22624@pbhya.PacBell.COM> <15191@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, Oakland, CA
Lines: 48

In article <15191@mimsy.UUCP>, folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes:
> 
> 
> And vi is NOT a word processor by any means.  It is TOTALLY line-oriented,
> and has no concept at all of, say, wordwrap.  I'm a power vi user, myself
                                     ^^^^^^^^
Try "set wordwrap=" and you will find that vi understands it very nicely.
(Given this, please define "power user".)

> (e.g. I've used the @ macro operator since before it was documented), but
> it is painful to do word processing on.  Adding nroff doesn't help.  Using
> the vi/nroff combination to do word processing is like using a keypunch/batch
> combination to program, it involves multiple steps and gives no immediate
> feedback.  Not to mention that much of vi's power is oriented towards programs
> (the %, for example), and it has a hard time even deleting a range of lines
> (unless you want to count lines and use 'dd', you must leave a mark, navigate
> to your intended end of deletion, then delete to the mark--slower than a
> mouse).

I've watched fast typints use vi.  These motions are very quick.  Locating
a mouse and using doesn't seem to be as fast.

On the bvasic point--I agree.  Vi is not a wordprocessor.  It is, however
an editor.  If one happens not to *care* what the output "looks like" 
beyond knowing what nroff will do with it, it is a very effective tool.
Further--unlike many wordprocessing programs--it doesn't leave little
unwanted presents lying about in your text.

> Lastly, you do not have to take your hands off of the keyboard to do things
> in Mac word processors.  Most good ones, such as MS Word, have keyboard
> equivalents for anything you can do from the Mouse.  You use the mouse because
> you feel like it, or because you need the help finding your command.  You
> use the keyboard when you get around to memorizing the things... The best
> of both worlds, which vi does not offer.

The first effective defense I've seen.  Interestingly, you are pointing out
features of a program that came from an environment that never had a mouse
as a standard feature, rather than something ported from a mouse-driven
environment.  This makes it a one-way operation.  This could probably be
done to vi, too, should anyone want to.

     --Hal

=========================================================================
  Hal Heydt                             |    "Hafnium plus Holmium is
  Analyst, Pacific*Bell                 |     one-point-five, I think."
  415-645-7708                          |       --Dr. Jane Robinson
  {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh