Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:17:50PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:19:49 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote: > > You're absolutely right. I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in > > awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to > > me) and achieving great edits in next to no time. Other colleagues lived > > inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor > > attached. I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly > > taking more real time than the vi guys. Each to their own. > > > Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my > > case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a > > Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been > > well crafted back at the factory. Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected > > via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine. > > Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I > > still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault. The fact is that > > miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these > > circumstances. As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait. I like an > > editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI > > editors). > > Just to point out there's a connection between these two paragraphs. > You shouldn't have to wait even a second for emacs to start if you > "live" in it, ie use the server-start command and keep a running > instance open. Then, instead of emacs, invoking emacsclient from the > shell and applications will be virtually instant. Java has the same "sort of" thing in Nailgun - "insanely fast Java" - the same concept, but for Java, where the ng client just sends a message to a running Java instance (running ng server), to make it easy to launch or do whatever you want in Java - I assume (but don't know) that Eclipse has something like this built in (just like Firefox). Cheers,
Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]
On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:19:49 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote: > You're absolutely right. I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in > awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to > me) and achieving great edits in next to no time. Other colleagues lived > inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached. > I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more > real time than the vi guys. Each to their own. > Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case > very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, > where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well > crafted back at the factory. Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an > obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine. Latterly it > would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, > though it may well not be vi's fault. The fact is that miraculously 'joe' > seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances. As did > emacs .. if you could afford to wait. I like an editor to appear within 1 > second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors). Just to point out there's a connection between these two paragraphs. You shouldn't have to wait even a second for emacs to start if you "live" in it, ie use the server-start command and keep a running instance open. Then, instead of emacs, invoking emacsclient from the shell and applications will be virtually instant. Cheers, David.
Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]
If you are torn between emacs and vi, it's probably because you haven't run eval-mode inside emacs. On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Nick Boyce wrote: Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:19:49 From: Nick Boyce <n...@steelyglint.org> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?] Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 02:18:59 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:08:15 +1000 Erik Christiansen <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote: On 06.09.17 05:31, Nick Boyce wrote: [...] [Joe is] one of the first things I install on any Linux or *BSD system. In my decades of leading software teams, one thing I did not do is ask "What editor do you use?", even in employment interviews. In my experience, a programmer is most productive using the editor with which he's most proficient. You're absolutely right. I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time. Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached. I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys. Each to their own. It's interesting how programmers who arrived at Unix via VMS, and programmers who came from the mainframe world, often have correspondingly different software tastes. ... and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's as user-friendly as a cornered rat On the three occasions I've had to extract a marsupial possum from our chimney (they're like a cat on steroids), I've armed myself with thick leather gloves and grim determination. :) For vim, a cheat-sheet suffices, and :help " or google do explain. On DEC Ultrix, Digital Unix (OSF/1 .. Tru64) and on HPUX there is no vim, and the DEC/HP salesmen have delivered no cheet sheets with the beasts, and in vi the F1 key does not summon any help, and from insert mode there is no help command, and in 1995 google has not yet been invented. The unskilled novice smokes a cigarette (it's 1995) to calm down, and gravitates to a different editor ... a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes removing again. Ugh. That's an xterm error, as the arrows simply produce motion even in Insert-mode, if that's properly set up. Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory. Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine. Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault. The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances. As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait. I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors). ... unless you also add something like: " These days I expect to be out of insert mode, after a vertical move: inoremap ^[ inoremap ^[ That's great to have - thanks for that (seriously), along with the other .vimrc tweaks you gave. I realise much can be improved by tweaking .vimrc, as it can be with .muttrc, .bashrc and the like. This is why power users often carry their own personal versions of these rc files with them wherever they roam ... and old greybeards sometimes dispense rc nuggets to neophytes at moments of crisis. Cheers Nick --
Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:08:15 +1000 Erik Christiansenwrote: > On 06.09.17 05:31, Nick Boyce wrote: [...] > > [Joe is] one of the first things I install on any Linux > > or *BSD system. > > In my decades of leading software teams, one thing I did not do is ask > "What editor do you use?", even in employment interviews. In my > experience, a programmer is most productive using the editor with which > he's most proficient. You're absolutely right. I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time. Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached. I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys. Each to their own. It's interesting how programmers who arrived at Unix via VMS, and programmers who came from the mainframe world, often have correspondingly different software tastes. > > ... and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's > > as user-friendly as a cornered rat > > On the three occasions I've had to extract a marsupial possum from our > chimney (they're like a cat on steroids), I've armed myself with thick > leather gloves and grim determination. :) > For vim, a cheat-sheet suffices, > and :help " or google do explain. On DEC Ultrix, Digital Unix (OSF/1 .. Tru64) and on HPUX there is no vim, and the DEC/HP salesmen have delivered no cheet sheets with the beasts, and in vi the F1 key does not summon any help, and from insert mode there is no help command, and in 1995 google has not yet been invented. The unskilled novice smokes a cigarette (it's 1995) to calm down, and gravitates to a different editor > > ... a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered > > instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes > > removing again. Ugh. > > That's an xterm error, as the arrows simply produce motion even in > Insert-mode, if that's properly set up. Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory. Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine. Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault. The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances. As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait. I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors). > ... unless you also add something like: > > " These days I expect to be out of insert mode, after a vertical move: > inoremap ^[ > inoremap ^[ That's great to have - thanks for that (seriously), along with the other .vimrc tweaks you gave. I realise much can be improved by tweaking .vimrc, as it can be with .muttrc, .bashrc and the like. This is why power users often carry their own personal versions of these rc files with them wherever they roam ... and old greybeards sometimes dispense rc nuggets to neophytes at moments of crisis. Cheers Nick -- Never FDISK after midnight.