Anton Graham wrote:
>
> Submitted 07-May-00 by Frank Meurer:
> | There's one statement I must add:
> | 666: The number of the beast.
> | VI VI VI: The editor of the beast.
>
> Like emacs is any less cryptic? Or jed with its WordStar-like key-bindings? I
> would venture that a *large* number of new Linux users are a) too young or b)
> to new to computers to have ever used WS. But, those bindings (which
> frequently have no semantic logic) are carved into my brain because WS used to
> be "What there is."
>
> Vi is the same. While it doesn't always make a lot of sense, the command set
> is relatively simple. If you don't want to learn the more advanced aspects of
> it, that's fine. But, emacs is (IMHO) a mountain of bloat requiring users to
> learn a command set that is no more semantically efficient.
Now that you mention it. Is there anyone out there who can code
well enough to create a text editor that will work like all the new
GUI editors and like edit.com ( of dos fame ) ?
Every command line text editor has an interface that is unique to
it, except VI which has an interface shared by several VI clones.
Those of us who administer Unix systems are required to learn VI
because it's part of POSIX and you can expect to find it. What
about those who use Linux, Windows and Mac and have no need or
intention to work on more complex systems ?
Not being a programer sucks. ( For the record I have started to
learn C++ will take up this project soon if nobody else is
interested and I survive the learning curve.
