Xref: utzoo comp.misc:5512 comp.editors:543 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!gaynor From: gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.editors Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 89 18:17:02 GMT References: <222@imspw6.UUCP> <252@torch.UUCP> <2112@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com> <743@stag.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 36 > How do other programmers/hackers out there feel about the need for higher > level programming editors/tools? Absolutely essential. > Are you completely happy with your current editor, Yes, GNU Emacs. It's kind of funny that GNU Emacs provides a much better programming environment for its Lisp extension language than Unix does for its shells and utility languages (like awk and sed). > so things like folding and inter-file relationships aren't really of any > foreseeable use? `Folding', in your sense, is a way to arbitrarily selectively displaying portions of a buffer? It's in GNU, and is extremely useful. (GNUsers, note the function narrow-to-region and the variable selective-display.) > Is moded vs. non-moded really the issue between editors No, that's an issue between users and how they bind their keys, unless the editors in question do not provide arbitrary keysequence rebinding. (This is invariably present in programmable editors.) > or is it non-programmable vs. programmable Yes! > or does it simply boil down to the actual options and commands you have > available in an editor? Yes, which is why programmability is so important. When someone gets fed up with a missing or deficient feature, s/he can program it the way they want it and can make the code available to others. Regards, [Ag] gaynor@rutgers.edu