Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!oberon!nunki.usc.edu!sawant From: sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor Message-ID: <3074@nunki.usc.edu> Date: 16 Mar 89 01:54:33 GMT References: <222@imspw6.UUCP> <9653@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <5552@brspyr1.BRS.Com> <561@peritek.UUCP> Reply-To: sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 23 In article tale@pawl.rpi.edu writes: > >I've been watching this discussion for a couple of days now without >jumping in with support for my favourite editor. That's mostly >because I think it is important for someone to be happy with an editor >and not everyone likes the same things. But please stopping making >comments that just aren't accurate. >-- > tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu I think this leads up to my best reason why 'Unix needs a real text editor': it's just that editors are very much a question of personal taste; a small set of editors cannot possibly satisfy all users. I think this is a very strong aspect of the PC and the Mac vs. Unix: that if i want to use a text editor of any crazy flavour: whether small, fast, configurable, WYSIWYG, DTP, environment, etc, i can find one which suits my needs. In fact, i regularly move between WordStar, WordPerfect, the primitive editing within Ventura, SideKick, Turbo Pascal and Brief depending on exactly what i'm doing. I think being forced to use one of Emacs or vi is primitive (this is apart from my personal antipathy for both). -ajay