Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor
Message-ID: <2264@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 12 Mar 89 01:20:41 GMT
References: <7324@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <9059@claris.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 26

In article <9059@claris.com> krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) writes:
>From an article by walkerb@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Brian Walker):
>>Actually, for all of it's clunks and clatters, vi is livable.  I
>>wouldn't mind having a true full screen editor, but vi does offer the
>>ability to work on any terminal for which a termcap is defined.  It's
>>command set isn't as bad as the one for Emacs (as in, :wq is a lot
>>easier to grasp than ^X^F).  And, you can learn to hit the dreaded
>>[esc] key.

>With the version of emacs I grew up on, and with enough work, you could 
>program it to act exactly like vi.
>
>That's on of the main advantages (I think) of emacs: I can customize it
>to my heart's delight.  I can make any key do anything.  [...]

That's one of vi's even bigger advantages; while it, too can be re-macroed
to do whatever you please, there ain't no way you're going to ever put
together the macros to make it act like emacs :-) :-) :-)

				--Blair
				  "And if you ever wanted to,
				   I'd sell you forty percent
				   of my thirty percent of the
				   consortium's tewnty percent
				   of the Brooklyn bridge.
				   |-D |-D |-D |-D |-D |-D |-D