Re: vi vs. ISPF
-Original Message- From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 February 2003 14:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: vi vs. ISPF Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped. Flame war alert! Discussions about editors gradually decline to religious issues. Once vi is involved can emacs/xemacs be far behind? Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Flame war alert! Discussions about editors gradually decline to religious issues. Once vi is involved can emacs/xemacs be far behind? Bring back the IBM 029 - a REAL MAN's editor. There is a dedicated newsgroup on Usenet - comp.editors (Walks away muttering: Personally, I liked EDI under RSX11 ) -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Yes, you can write your terminfo entry and use it. We did this extensively in the early 80's with ATT Unix (pre-Sys V.4) and Santa Cruz Operations Xenix, particularly for XWindows in Unix. A friend of mine wrote a dandy one for a Tandy Model 4 emulating a VT100. It isn't all that hard to do. Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tzafrir Cohen Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jim Sibley wrote: I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The keyboards on teletypes were notoriously slow, heavy to the touch, and the line speeds were so slow that they were desparate to find any method to speed up the transmission (ctl/alt modifier keys), no matter how awkward! command-mode has some other atvantages: command-history. vim (for example) uses this in a very useful manner. That this has been enshrined on Linux is certainly short sighted. The only reason I use vi is that 1) it is much the same on each *NIX system, 2) and it is reasonably compatible with the ex editor and sed for HMC and 3270 terminals, so I don't have to relearn an editor everytime I change terminal type. Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length records such as a long /etc/parmfile line. And its beyond annoying when xedit translates my parmfile to ALL UPPER CASE by default. The case m i command is NOT intuitive. At least ispf prereads the data and sets the mode to something reasonable, but then its pretty bad at dealing with something past 80 bytes. Vi has sense enough to wrap the lines. What really is needed is a simple editor that is a more intuitive and universal, rather than arguing whether the 3270 implementations are better or worse than the teletype implementations. But there are plenty of those! (pico^H^H^H^Hnano and joe are nice two. relatively intuitive). But both will show garbage on a 3270 terminal... Maybe someone could come up with a simple Java editor that will work the same on HMC, 3270, and teletype terminals! Its an editor guys - we shouldn't have to read a 3 inch manual to make it work! No. most unix text editors use termcap/terminfo to get information about the capabilities of the terminal . Most of them use the library ncurses for terminal graphics, some use slang. I saw that there is a terminfo entry of ibm327x . When I tried to use it pico (sorry, that is the only ncurses program I have at my disposal at tha machine) blantly refused: 'ibm327x': I need something more specific. I tried some other 'ibm*' entries, all of them were accepted, but I got all sorts of different garbages: the escape sequeces were clearly not interpreted by the terminal. Is there any way to get proper termcap/terminfo entries working? (e.g: avoid the need for unalias ls?) Or is any general solution in this path needs to be more radical (e.g: some specific support inside ncurses for 3270 terminals? I don't know terminal devices very well) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Paul Raulerson wrote: - Original Message - From: Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF You probably won't be able to get this work. A 3270 data stream is block oriented, and requires a much more intelligent terminal that I have ever been able to describein a termcap or terminfo entry. :) (So what exactly is this ibm327x terminfo entry?) Some extra code, you mean? Still, it would probably be much less than a whole new editor in Java ;-) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: vi vs. ISPF
You guys make me feel smart. I use vi because I learned it years ago, and can do anything I want with it. I learned the ISPF editor about a year ago and can do most anything with it. I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. -Original Message- From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: vi vs. ISPF Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped. I used to run Linux on a well-built 486 - 8 Mbytes of RAM. Even fvwm was painful. ISPF (and probably xedit) would have been a bit much. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: vi vs. ISPF
I know the difference between command mode and insert mode in vi. I happen to hate that there IS a difference. It's ugly. The designer of vi has committed a barney/teletubbie level crime against humanity. There are better ways to do an editor. |-+ | | Fargusson.Alan | | | Alan.Fargusson@f| | | tb.ca.gov | | | Sent by: Linux on| | | 390 Port | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | IST.EDU | | || | || | | 02/20/2003 10:41 | | | AM | | | Please respond to| | | Linux on 390 Port| | || |-+ --| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF | --| You guys make me feel smart. I use vi because I learned it years ago, and can do anything I want with it. I learned the ISPF editor about a year ago and can do most anything with it. I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. -Original Message- From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: vi vs. ISPF Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote: I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic, and there's no good way to tell if you're in command mode in most setups. Sure, you can always do esc I (or A, or...) to make sure you're in insert mode, but why should you have to?
Re: vi vs. ISPF
echo :set smd ~/.exrc should take care of that. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Jay Maynard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote: I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic, and there's no good way to tell if you're in command mode in most setups. Sure, you can always do esc I (or A, or...) to make sure you're in insert mode, but why should you have to?
Re: vi vs. ISPF (humor)
That'd be either an 029 or a 129, right? I doubt you'd like something as
advanced as a 3741?
John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines (GNUrd) {813-356|697}-5322
Adsumo ergo raptus sum
IBM Certified: IBM AIX 4.3 System Administration, System Support
- Forwarded by John Campbell/Tampa/IBM on 02/20/2003 12:24 PM -
Alan
Altmark/Endicott/To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM@IBMUScc:
Sent by: Linux onSubject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF
390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
02/20/2003 11:47
AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:18 EST, John Campbell/Tampa/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
vi is no more evil than xedit (ick) or SPF or emacs; it's *all* a
matter
of what you're used to- and what works for YOU.
That's true except for *my* favorite editor. It is morally and
technically superior to all other editors. It is, indeed, the One True
Editor! By definition. (If it wasn't, I wouldn't use it, right?) ;-)
Alan Altmark
Sr. Software Engineer
IBM z/VM Development
Re: vi vs. ISPF
This is religion. I happen to like that there are two modes since I don't have to type as much to get my work done. I don't like editors that make me use control-something to do everything since I loose my hand position on the keyboard. I don't like pf-keys, and arrow keys for the same reason. -Original Message- From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF I know the difference between command mode and insert mode in vi. I happen to hate that there IS a difference. It's ugly. The designer of vi has committed a barney/teletubbie level crime against humanity. There are better ways to do an editor. |-+ | | Fargusson.Alan | | | Alan.Fargusson@f| | | tb.ca.gov | | | Sent by: Linux on| | | 390 Port | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | IST.EDU | | || | || | | 02/20/2003 10:41 | | | AM | | | Please respond to| | | Linux on 390 Port| | || |-+ --| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF | --| You guys make me feel smart. I use vi because I learned it years ago, and can do anything I want with it. I learned the ISPF editor about a year ago and can do most anything with it. I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. -Original Message- From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: vi vs. ISPF Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:05:29 -0500, Peter Flass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped. It is sort of like the TRS-80 character mode editor, just presented on a whole screen. All the modes are really confusing... I am a died in the wool EDGAR/XEDIT/KEDIT curmoudgeon. I have kedit macros which I have been using for 12 years which make it look very much like EDGAR. john
Re: vi vs. ISPF
What part of this discussion did you think _wasn't_ religion? Mark Post -Original Message- From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF This is religion. I happen to like that there are two modes since I don't have to type as much to get my work done. I don't like editors that make me use control-something to do everything since I loose my hand position on the keyboard. I don't like pf-keys, and arrow keys for the same reason.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
At 10:48 AM 2/20/2003 -0600, you wrote: I know the difference between command mode and insert mode in vi. I happen to hate that there IS a difference. It's ugly. The designer of vi has committed a barney/teletubbie level crime against humanity. There are better ways to do an editor. But to listen to UInix guru's, they feel that VI is the ultimate thing. HA. Maybe the ultimate thing available for Unix but not the ultimate in editors to say the least.
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Jay Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote: I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic, and there's no good way to tell if you're in command mode in most setups. Sure, you can always do esc I (or A, or...) to make sure you're in insert mode, but why should you have to? Add set showmode to your .exrc file in your home directory (assuming your vi clone is a true clone. The BSD one seems to be the closest to real vi, I'm not a fan of vim myself...) Then, in the bottom right hand corner, vi will display the mode. It can be very helpful for learning... Now - as to the question of why should you have to? Well - that's a big one, either way :-) I think it comes down to what do your fingers remember... - Dave Rivers - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
Re: vi vs. ISPF
I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The keyboards on teletypes were notoriously slow, heavy to the touch, and the line speeds were so slow that they were desparate to find any method to speed up the transmission (ctl/alt modifier keys), no matter how awkward! That this has been enshrined on Linux is certainly short sighted. The only reason I use vi is that 1) it is much the same on each *NIX system, 2) and it is reasonably compatible with the ex editor and sed for HMC and 3270 terminals, so I don't have to relearn an editor everytime I change terminal type. Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length records such as a long /etc/parmfile line. And its beyond annoying when xedit translates my parmfile to ALL UPPER CASE by default. The case m i command is NOT intuitive. At least ispf prereads the data and sets the mode to something reasonable, but then its pretty bad at dealing with something past 80 bytes. Vi has sense enough to wrap the lines. What really is needed is a simple editor that is a more intuitive and universal, rather than arguing whether the 3270 implementations are better or worse than the teletype implementations. Maybe someone could come up with a simple Java editor that will work the same on HMC, 3270, and teletype terminals! Its an editor guys - we shouldn't have to read a 3 inch manual to make it work! Regards, Jim Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Grace Happens ***
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Editor Holy Wars? Again?
Look, admittedly vi is a user-hostile editor, but, like any editor, the
necessary key sequences got conditioned into the nervous system as a set
of reflexes. The same is true of Emacs, xedit, SPF, what have you.
Since the editor is the choke point for a human being to put information
INTO a computer (actually, the human hand) one will build up the necessary
reflexes to get the job done.
vi is no more evil than xedit (ick) or SPF or emacs; it's *all* a matter
of what you're used to- and what works for YOU.
Though I will admit to some drooling when I watch what others can do w/
emacs but which my conditioned reflexes accumulated over 18 years makes
difficult to do myself; I've been using vi for a LONG time.
An amusing aside: My oldest son (now 28) taught himself vi from Sobell's
Practical Guide to Unix when he was still 12 (all I had was a Xenix box)
and, when I boasted about this to a co-worker, he replied: Don't boast
about that: vi qualifies as child abuse. So my wife and 8 y/o daughter
use pico instead. (pico is close to a text-mode (non-X) notepad-like
editor but has some annoying traits like word-wrapping, which is unhelpful
when editing system files...)
John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines (GNUrd) {813-356|697}-5322
Adsumo ergo raptus sum
IBM Certified: IBM AIX 4.3 System Administration, System Support
- Forwarded by John Campbell/Tampa/IBM on 02/20/2003 11:10 AM -
John Summerfield
summer@computerdatasTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
afe.com.au cc:
Sent by: Linux on 390Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs.
ISPF
Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EDU
02/20/2003 10:51 AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often
used
commands, and another
10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized.
Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my
mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of
vi, which should have long ago been scrapped.
I used to run Linux on a well-built 486 - 8 Mbytes of RAM. Even fvwm was
painful. ISPF (and probably xedit) would have been a bit much.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/
Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my
disposition.
==
If you don't like being told you're wrong,
be right!
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, 1928. http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Greetings; Actually vi was written for use on VT100 class terminals at 300 baud. It was the son, or grandson of ed, which was written for use on hardcopy terminals. I haven't used every editor out there, but I have used a few of them, AFAIR every one of them makes a distinction between insert mode and replace or overtype mode. And in some cases there is only one place you can enter commands and every place else is data. So where is the problem? Oh, that is with the exception of a lot of PC editors whose *only* mode of operation is insert! And, if you are lucky enough to never have had to use the most basic editor available to correct a clobbered parm or ini file to get a system up, count yourself among the fortunate. There have been several times that I have thanked my lucky stars that I knew a little bit how to use ed! And please tell us what is intuitive about anything associated with computers? Even if you are intimately acquainted with an IBM Selectric there is very little that is intuitive about using any but the most basic of text editors. I won't get started on what I think of anything written in JAVA! Regards, Dennis Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] m.comcc: Sent by: LinuxSubject: Re: vi vs. ISPF on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] ARIST.EDU 02/20/2003 01:10 PM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The keyboards on teletypes were notoriously slow, heavy to the touch, and the line speeds were so slow that they were desparate to find any method to speed up the transmission (ctl/alt modifier keys), no matter how awkward! That this has been enshrined on Linux is certainly short sighted. The only reason I use vi is that 1) it is much the same on each *NIX system, 2) and it is reasonably compatible with the ex editor and sed for HMC and 3270 terminals, so I don't have to relearn an editor everytime I change terminal type. Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length records such as a long /etc/parmfile line. And its beyond annoying when xedit translates my parmfile to ALL UPPER CASE by default. The case m i command is NOT intuitive. At least ispf prereads the data and sets the mode to something reasonable, but then its pretty bad at dealing with something past 80 bytes. Vi has sense enough to wrap the lines. What really is needed is a simple editor that is a more intuitive and universal, rather than arguing whether the 3270 implementations are better or worse than the teletype implementations. Maybe someone could come up with a simple Java editor that will work the same on HMC, 3270, and teletype terminals! Its an editor guys - we shouldn't have to read a 3 inch manual to make it work! Regards, Jim Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Grace Happens ***
Re: vi vs. ISPF (humor)
At 18:25 20.02.2003, John Campbell wrote: On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:18 EST, John Campbell/Tampa/IBM@IBMUS wrote: vi is no more evil than xedit (ick) or SPF or emacs; it's *all* a matter of what you're used to- and what works for YOU. That's true except for *my* favorite editor. It is morally and technically superior to all other editors. It is, indeed, the One True Editor! By definition. (If it wasn't, I wouldn't use it, right?) ;-) Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development Alan is right for editors. But vi is not an editor, it's a pitiable condition. /Herbert (from the Illuminati movement against the Unix scourge)
Re: vi vs. ISPF
I just found a really interesting message. I tried to go into VI on my real 3270 type terminal under the OMVS command that runs under TSO in Unix on MVS. I get the following message: FSUM9140 Terminal dumb has insufficient capabilities for Curses. That's just what I thought - curses. Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] + This electronic mail transmission contains information from P H Mining Equipment which is confidential, and is intended only for the use of the proper addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately at the return address on this transmission, or by telephone at (414) 671-4400, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Unauthorized use, copying, disclosing, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. +
Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jim Sibley wrote: I find it amusing that the the Unix purists are defending a 1950's type line editor (with input and command mod) designed for a teletype keyboard and paper roll output then converted to the glass teletype equivalent. The keyboards on teletypes were notoriously slow, heavy to the touch, and the line speeds were so slow that they were desparate to find any method to speed up the transmission (ctl/alt modifier keys), no matter how awkward! command-mode has some other atvantages: command-history. vim (for example) uses this in a very useful manner. That this has been enshrined on Linux is certainly short sighted. The only reason I use vi is that 1) it is much the same on each *NIX system, 2) and it is reasonably compatible with the ex editor and sed for HMC and 3270 terminals, so I don't have to relearn an editor everytime I change terminal type. Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length records such as a long /etc/parmfile line. And its beyond annoying when xedit translates my parmfile to ALL UPPER CASE by default. The case m i command is NOT intuitive. At least ispf prereads the data and sets the mode to something reasonable, but then its pretty bad at dealing with something past 80 bytes. Vi has sense enough to wrap the lines. What really is needed is a simple editor that is a more intuitive and universal, rather than arguing whether the 3270 implementations are better or worse than the teletype implementations. But there are plenty of those! (pico^H^H^H^Hnano and joe are nice two. relatively intuitive). But both will show garbage on a 3270 terminal... Maybe someone could come up with a simple Java editor that will work the same on HMC, 3270, and teletype terminals! Its an editor guys - we shouldn't have to read a 3 inch manual to make it work! No. most unix text editors use termcap/terminfo to get information about the capabilities of the terminal . Most of them use the library ncurses for terminal graphics, some use slang. I saw that there is a terminfo entry of ibm327x . When I tried to use it pico (sorry, that is the only ncurses program I have at my disposal at tha machine) blantly refused: 'ibm327x': I need something more specific. I tried some other 'ibm*' entries, all of them were accepted, but I got all sorts of different garbages: the escape sequeces were clearly not interpreted by the terminal. Is there any way to get proper termcap/terminfo entries working? (e.g: avoid the need for unalias ls?) Or is any general solution in this path needs to be more radical (e.g: some specific support inside ncurses for 3270 terminals? I don't know terminal devices very well) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: vi vs. ISPF (humor)
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 20:53, Herbert Szumovski wrote: Alan is right for editors. But vi is not an editor, it's a pitiable condition. vi vi vi the number of the beast
Re: vi vs. ISPF
On Thursday, 02/20/2003 at 11:10 PST, Jim Sibley/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS wrote: Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, transfered on the 3270 glass tube was enshrined on MVS as ispf and VM as xedit. Neither of them work very well for long, variable length records such as a long /etc/parmfile line. And its beyond annoying when xedit translates my parmfile to ALL UPPER CASE by default. The case m i command is NOT intuitive. At least ispf prereads the data and sets the mode to something reasonable, but then its pretty bad at dealing with something past 80 bytes. Vi has sense enough to wrap the lines. Jim, if you are limiting your 3270 sessions to 80 columns, that's your choice, of course, but not everyone does that. (It is amusing that some programmers today insist on 24x80 3270 sessions) ;-) My PROFILE XEDIT changes the default to CASE M I for me, switching to uppercase for specific filetypes. For files in the BFS it even makes an attempt to figure out whether the linend is CRLF, LF, NL, or CRNL. It dawned on me many years ago that *I'm* the only one who knows what is reasonable (beauty, eye, beholder), so I took it upon myself to fluff up my electronic pillows to my liking. I don't like other people doing that for me. (The way I can't stand a lot of PC word processor's incessant desire to upper/lower case things for me...as though I don't know how to type.) What really is needed is a simple editor that is a more intuitive and universal, rather than arguing whether the 3270 implementations are better or worse than the teletype implementations. Ah, the Holy Grail. A better mousetrap, indeed! If all you want is a WYSIWYG editor, that's doable. Oh, you want want one with search/replace? A way to skip the cursor over an entire word? Skip to the end of the line? Macros? Block vs. Character mode? Accessibility for someone with visual or other physical disability? It's all the other, complicated stuff that has the value. And it is there that people really get comfortable. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Hello from Gregg C Levine More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole purpose of tabulating the mountain of data from the census from that year. The machines that he designed went on to build one portion of IBM's industries. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Payne Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF Its just as amusing that the 1970's technology of the 80 column card, 1928. http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: vi vs. ISPF
You guys make me feel smart. I use vi because I learned it years ago, and ca n do anything I want with it. I learned the ISPF editor about a year ago and can do most anything with it. I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. Ah. I didn't understand what Paul was rambling about. In ISPF, last I used it, I had to press an AID key and wait for a mainframe response in order to switch to command mode. I think the ESC key in vi is generally quicker. -Original Message- From: Peter Flass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: vi vs. ISPF Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vi is very much simpler than ISPF, once you memorize about 12 often used commands, and another 10 that are used often but don't need to be memorized. Simpler, but extremely annoying. The whole insert thing just blows my mind. I prefer the ISPF editor to xedit, but both are miles ahead of vi, which should have long ago been scrapped. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: vi vs. ISPF
I am a died in the wool EDGAR/XEDIT/KEDIT curmoudgeon. I have kedit macros which I have been using for 12 years which make it look very much like EDGAR. I met Edgar once. I was called on to fix an adamint bug, and kept scrolling the wrong way! (my fix worked, better (according to the customer) than the official fix which came later). -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: vi vs. ISPF
How about this little workaround? echo set showmode $HOME/.exrc Now fire up vi. Command mode is the default -- nothing shows on the status line. The status line at the bottom of the screen will tell you when you're in insert, append, or replace mode, just like the little insert indicator will come up on a 3270's status line :-) I agree with many ... this is a religious war, and you should do whatever floats your boat. Personally, I use whichever editor I have available. vi just happens to be ubiquitous enough to use on any self-respecting *nix machine (although I do have a story about one user's box I had to work on that had neither man pages nor vi -- he liked pico, and couldn't bring himself to waste the disk space ... sheesh). I never liked having to memorize keystrokes, but then again, 3270s just aren't available everywhere you go. vi wasn't *that* hard to learn after 20 years of working with ISPF/XEDIT. It just took a little getting used to, and I gotta admit, it has its strengths. One of these is not having to set EDITOR when working with CVS :-) Oh ... that One True Editor was Windows Notepad? Sorry for the argument -- you win :-) --Jim-- James S. Tison Senior Software Engineer TPF Laboratory / Architecture IBM Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jay Maynard jmaynard@conmicrTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o.cxcc: Sent by: Linux onSubject: Re: vi vs. ISPF 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 02/20/2003 11:54 AM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:41:07AM -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote: I am surprised that some of you can't figure out the difference between command mode, and insert mode. The problem is that typig text at vi in command mode is often catastrophic, and there's no good way to tell if you're in command mode in most setups. Sure, you can always do esc I (or A, or...) to make sure you're in insert mode, but why should you have to?
Re: vi vs. ISPF
- Original Message - From: Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: vi vs. ISPF You probably won't be able to get this work. A 3270 data stream is block oriented, and requires a much more intelligent terminal that I have ever been able to describein a termcap or terminfo entry. :) Actually, vi requires character by character keystrokes so that it knows what to do next. This is not really expensive under UNIX, but is terrifically expensive in terms of I/O under OS/390 or VM. Even though it gives the illusion of editing a page at a time, it really does not. It simply keeps track of where the cursor is on a virutal screen (a text mode backing store to be accurate.) -Paul I saw that there is a terminfo entry of ibm327x . When I tried to use it pico (sorry, that is the only ncurses program I have at my disposal at tha machine) blantly refused: 'ibm327x': I need something more specific. I tried some other 'ibm*' entries, all of them were accepted, but I got all sorts of different garbages: the escape sequeces were clearly not interpreted by the terminal. Is there any way to get proper termcap/terminfo entries working? (e.g: avoid the need for unalias ls?) Or is any general solution in this path needs to be more radical (e.g: some specific support inside ncurses for 3270 terminals? I don't know terminal devices very well) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: vi vs. ISPF
More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole purpose of tabulating the mountain of data from the census from that year. The machines that he designed went on to build one portion of IBM's industries. If you bother to click on the link I posted: http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html You'll a complete history of Hollerith. The first sentences are: After receiving his Engineer of Mines (EM) degree, Hollerith worked on the 1880 US census, a laborious and error-prone operation that cried out for mechanization. After some initial trials with paper tape, he settled on punched cards (pioneered in the Jacquard loom) to record information, and designed special equipment to tabulate the results. His designs won the competition for the 1890 US census. And if you take the trouble to scroll down a little, you'll find the 80-column rectangular hole punched card we were using in teh 1970s was introduced in 1928. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Hello from Gregg C Levine Hmm. Been there. Have read his bio. It happens that he first used the French card shapes, which were closer to the ones used by the System/3. Then by time period you quite, his CTR company started using the card shapes, that we remember. So we are both right. I imagine everyone here, including Alan Altmark, and David Boyes, and one or two others, know the legends behind the uses IBM used the cards for, before the S/360 started off, so I won't go down that road. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Payne Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole purpose of tabulating the mountain of data from the census from that year. The machines that he designed went on to build one portion of IBM's industries. If you bother to click on the link I posted: http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html You'll a complete history of Hollerith. The first sentences are: After receiving his Engineer of Mines (EM) degree, Hollerith worked on the 1880 US census, a laborious and error-prone operation that cried out for mechanization. After some initial trials with paper tape, he settled on punched cards (pioneered in the Jacquard loom) to record information, and designed special equipment to tabulate the results. His designs won the competition for the 1890 US census. And if you take the trouble to scroll down a little, you'll find the 80-column rectangular hole punched card we were using in teh 1970s was introduced in 1928. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: vi vs. ISPF
Hello again from Gregg C Levine Sorry, typo daemon at work. Drat! That word should be, Quote. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gregg C Levine Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF Hello from Gregg C Levine Hmm. Been there. Have read his bio. It happens that he first used the French card shapes, which were closer to the ones used by the System/3. Then by time period you quite, his CTR company started using the card shapes, that we remember. So we are both right. I imagine everyone here, including Alan Altmark, and David Boyes, and one or two others, know the legends behind the uses IBM used the cards for, before the S/360 started off, so I won't go down that road. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Payne Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] vi vs. ISPF More like 1880s, Phil. The card was invented by him, for the sole purpose of tabulating the mountain of data from the census from that year. The machines that he designed went on to build one portion of IBM's industries. If you bother to click on the link I posted: http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/hollerith.html You'll a complete history of Hollerith. The first sentences are: After receiving his Engineer of Mines (EM) degree, Hollerith worked on the 1880 US census, a laborious and error-prone operation that cried out for mechanization. After some initial trials with paper tape, he settled on punched cards (pioneered in the Jacquard loom) to record information, and designed special equipment to tabulate the results. His designs won the competition for the 1890 US census. And if you take the trouble to scroll down a little, you'll find the 80-column rectangular hole punched card we were using in teh 1970s was introduced in 1928. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
