Xref: utzoo comp.misc:5491 comp.editors:536
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!kodak!ektools!isctsse!brunjes
From: brunjes@isctsse.UUCP (Roy Brunjes)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.editors
Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor
Message-ID: <167@isctsse.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 89 17:09:06 GMT
References: <222@imspw6.UUCP> <252@torch.UUCP> <2112@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com>
Sender: daemon@ektools (The Devil Himself)
Reply-To: brunjes@isctsse.UUCP (Roy Brunjes)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Telecommunication Services, Rochester, N.Y. 14650
Lines: 30

In article <2112@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com> loo@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com (Joel Loo) writes:
>I am a vi convert (in every sense of the word) after using  ZMACS
>(a  more  powerful  extended  version of Emacs) on a certain Lisp
>machine for over a year and almost 8 hours a day everyday.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>Agree that vi need to be improved.  There  are  certain  features
>that  should  be  included (maybe someone can look into this). My
>advice is: spend more time reading the vi  reference  manual.  Do
>not be discouraged from using it just because vi has cryptic com-
>mands. It serves most programming needs just too well.
>

Just one comment to make here:  A Sun techie doing some consulting with me
pointed out that even Bill Joy (creator of vi) doesn't use Vi anymore.  He
uses GNU Emacs.

As a GNU Emacs user, I admit that the LISP-like syntax used to "program"
Emacs is non-intuitive to a non-LISP programmer like myself, but I have to
do precious little of that anyway (4 lines in my .emacs file).  I have
had to live with Vi because it *IS* on almost any UNIX system I go to,
but that doesn't mean that I have to like it!

Roy Brunjes
...rochester!kodak!kadsma!brunjes

Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own.  My employer doesn't even know I
	     have opinions about such things and consequently couldn't begin
	     to endorse them.