On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 11:58:10AM -0700, Bryan Irvine wrote:
> >Real men use ed, you misguided fool.
>
> ed? is that like pico? ;)
Please don't bitch on ed(1).
- It's great if you have to make trivial changes for ${CUSTOMER}, and
want to get your money -- i.e. use emacs(1) or vi(1) and ${CUSTOMER}
is disappointed, since he understands what you're doing; use ed(1)
and ${CUSTOMER} is impressed because you're a typing strange
characeters into a terminal and suddenly everything works.
[Disclaimer: this concept came frome a friend of mine]
- ed(1) is great as CVSEDITOR. You do a cvs di -wu, then you do a cvs ci
and still see your changes on the terminal, so you're able to write a
good log message for your commit.
- You can use ed(1) non-interactively from shell scripts, changing
files in-place. Yes, perl(1) can do it too, but it has a little
bit different memory footprint.
- In hostile environments (hopping over several hosts running different
operating systems, including VMS) you'll end up with a dumb
terminal sooner or later. For small tasks, using ed(1) is much
or efficient than fixing terminal issues to make vi(1) or emacs(1)
work.
Ciao,
Kili, usually sticking with vi(1).
--
Kvnn't man kyrillisch, wdr's echt idyllisch.
-- "hwicht" in de.rec.motorrad
