I think most of what people have as their opinion of what editor is best
comes from the first editor you learned, either in school or on the job.
Especially if you used that editor for 5 or 10 years before using the next
editor. A couple of years ago I took 3 Linux Admin classes, and had to
learn the VI editor. I thought that VI was the worst possible editor
imaginable. Yet, if I talked to our Unix person, VI was great. He thought
ISPF was awful. I admit that VIM is a lot better, but I still don't think
it holds a candle to the ISPF editor.
At P&H Mining, we occasionally talked about XEDIT compared to ISPF. I liked
ISPF much better, but that was because I grew up with it. I could see from
what others told me that there was some things that could be done better in
XEDIT than ISPF. This was from people who had worked with XEDIT for a long
period of time before ever seeing ISPF.
I don't think you can say one editor is necessarily better than the other,
although if you came up with an objective set of criteria, you could
probably rate editors against that criteria. I still think most of it is
personal preference. But, I still think that almost any editor is better
than punched cards. (Except maybe VI) When I started, I don't think I saw
a terminal for 4 or 5 years, and punched cards was all there was at the 1st
2 shops I worked at.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:50:50 -0400, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
The ISPF editor is OK, but lots of people would say even vim is
just as good or better.
XEmacs (or emacs) is light years ahead of ISPF edit.
Emacs does some stuff better, ISPF edit does other stuff better. I
tend to prefer the latter for most programming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
