On 23 November 2017 at 21:01, Tomasz Rola <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > [...] >> But only someone who thinks that Emacs or Vi are usable editors could >> think this was an appealing virtualisation solution. > > Oh my, I know you are not offensive and I think flame over editors is > really stupid thing to do, but whenever I read I could do something > better, yet without hint how to change for the better, it is an itch > to scratch for me. So, with half of my tongue in a cheek, which > editors should I choose from - sed, ed, cat, joe, dd?
I am wondering if I can cut-n-paste my response from somewhere but the last time I had this argument, it was at work, on work systems, and I shouldn't do that. Some of it is here: http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/32740.html And a sequel here which answers your direct question: http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/42908.html Currently, I use Tilde. Why? Basically, when I started out, I learned the Sinclair ZX series ROM editor, then the improved one in Beta BASIC, then the full-screen one on the Spectrum 128. I even bought the numeric keypad, which is super-rare. I did a lot of word-processing of essays on it, in The Last Word, an obscure word processor app. Then I went to university and learned some VMS and Fortran. I probably used VMS EDT. Then I got an Amstrad PCW and learned CP/M and some of the horrible old CP/M editors, the passable RPED and LocoScript. Then I started working, and learned Edlin, then the DR-DOS 5 editor, then the slightly better MS-DOS 5 EDIT. I also learned the Novell Netware editor, and Xenix vi. I worked with and supported WordStar, NewWord, WordStar Express (totally different!), WordStar 2000 (different again), WordPerfect, MultiMate, DisplayWrite, MS Word 3 and 4 for DOS, Samna Executive and others. All had totally different UIs. All were to some degree horrid. My least-disliked was MS Word for DOS. MS Word 5 switched the weird old MS UI for a CUA one of text-based menus. I learned that and liked it. I also worked on Macs and knew WriteNow, MacWrite, MS Word for Mac, TeachText, SimpleText, and others. Some a bit weird but all much better than on DOS! Then came Windows and NOTEPAD.EXE. Basically, after Windows, all editors were CUA. Menu bar at the top, Ctrl-O to open, Ctrl-P to print, Ctrl-S to save. Original weird CUA cut/copy/paste was replaced with Mac-style Ctrl-X/C/V. That's how _all_ editors work now -- including Kate, GEdit, Leafpad, Geany, basically every Linux desktop's editor. Except at the shell prompt, where horrid arcane old stuff from the 1970s lives on like a pack of zombies. All are totally weird and nonstandard except for a third-rate knock-off of WordStar, which itself was weird and nonstandard, because there were no standards back then. I refuse to even try to use any of them. I want a CUA editor. Standard menu bar, all the standard keystrokes. Standard terminology -- files/windows/panes/cut/copy/paste/clipboard etc. I will not use anything that involves "yanking" or "buffers" or command modes or any of that '70s garbage. Get modern or get out. The point here being that I learned *dozens* of editor UIs in my teens and early 20s. They were all horrid to some degree. The Mac banished them all, Windows nailed the coffin shut. MS-DOS conformed. It's _long_ past time Unix did too. > Requirement: __has_to__ work on a terminal without loss of > functionality (even though 99% of my editing happens in X, and I can > live with "some" loss), no Javascript inside (mostly, because I am not > willing to learn this anytime soon). Tilde. > Right now, the best choice for me is emacs - lots of configurability, > I can take Elisp to another emacs and hopefully it will work there, > too. I have tried. Repeatedly. The crazy horrid old UI and crazy horrid terminology in the manual and tutorial put me off. I can't get past it. I don't write code. I want no syntax highlighting, no code-completion, none of that, because it gets in my way. I write English and I want a tool for that, with the standard UI and keystrokes. Any additional wonderful editing power is nice but entirely secondary. I don't need it. I don't really want it. But with the big 2 -- vi and emacs -- I have to get past foul fetid stinking rotten '70s UIs -- and the only enticement, the only reason, is vast editing power I don't actually need. > Of course I will gladly learn about other choices. Seriously. What > others are using? I think my choices will offer nothing to you! :-( >> Did I mention my more or less complete and utter loathing for C21 computing? > > I guess a lot of people do, too. Yes. But not enough. :-) >> Why do you think I'm playing with MS-DOS again after 20y? > > I can see your loathing is bigger than mine... ("Spaceballs") :-D -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: [email protected] • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: [email protected] Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053
