On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote: > > >About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in > >this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares > >which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no > >stretch of imagination would it qualify as an editor, because an editor > >can meaningfully edit only what it can first show. And ed has never had > >anything to show. A modern operating system like FreeBSD should really > >be kicking ed out of the distribution completely : bad ideas don't have > >to be necessarily perpetuated just for the sake of compliance with the > >original concept of Unix. > > If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have > to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a > (long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it.
Please don't touch/remove ed(1)! * It's still very useful on non-curses/termcap capable terminals like raw serial lines etc. * It's also very useful in batch/script mode, as there are some multi-line text processing problems that you can't tackle with sed(1) alone, and where awk(1) or even perl, python etc.. are overkill. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"