On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (a bit orthogonal) >> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good >> for us? >> vim, emacs.. > > > better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another > set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets > have long become almost subconscious to use. >
i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own code(set of rules). >> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing >> smalltalk code in mind.. >> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. > > > they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them > for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power > features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out > Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). > me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't understand, why most of editors i know never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line.. so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine how many happy users will join us then! -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
