-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,
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
.
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
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
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.
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
]
|
| cc:
|
| 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m.comcc:
Sent by: LinuxSubject: Re: vi vs. ISPF
on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARIST.EDU
02/20
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
: 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
- 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
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:
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
