Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!blake!ogccse!littlei!omepd!mipos3!nate
From: nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Editor Wars
Keywords: editors, vi
Message-ID: <3892@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 14 Apr 89 04:46:14 GMT
References: <175@hcr.UUCP> <587@alice.marlow.uucp> <4048@ttidca.TTI.COM> <960@myrias.UUCP> <24@hcr.UUCP> <4129@ttidca.TTI.COM> <194@xochitl.UUCP> <156@inf.ethz.ch>
Sender: news@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: woodstock@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle)

In article <156@inf.ethz.ch>, wyle@inf (Mitchell Wyle) writes:
>Why I use vi:
 
>11) Inertia:  I've used vi(1) for a few years, have built up a large
>    family of macros for shell-script programming, troff text, and modula-2.
>    With continued commitment from vendors for support, why change?

Gosh.  With this line of reasoning, I'm surprised you're still not
programming in COBOL.

:-)#
--woodstock
-- 
	   "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
	   and thinking...and suddenly you wake up."   - Hobbes

woodstock@hobbes.intel.com   ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate