On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 11:09:03AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Highlighting makes source code impossible to read to someone who
isn't used to it. I'm really perplexed about how people think that
having each line of source code in six different colors somehow
makes things clearer.
That's a
What do I care about the size of vim ?
My development box has got 1G of real memory, and vim is the most single
important tool on that box ! All I care about is that it starts up fast
enough, and it does what I need it to do (visual highlights with v, and
multiple windows).
Heck, it's pretty
On 9/15/06 8:09 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
I'm really perplexed about how people think that having
each line of source code in six different colors somehow makes
things clearer.
I presume you are pretty often perplexed about people when you met them?
+++chefren
Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of us learned to use color to read things faster.
I've learned to read C very quickly without color. I just find color
distracting... I know one person who uses color highlighting has a hard
time reading code without it so I consider it a handicap in
It's pretty funny that it's taken this long for another religious
discussion on text editors to pop up on misc. With all the faith,
I would have expected it more often.
My faith in the non-Improved vi is reinforced every time I see
someone using vim with color syntax highlighting.
Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take the time to learn real vi. You might just like it. vi is on every
Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you need to
Nah, it's ed that's like edlin
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:16:24AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
$ ldd /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi
/usr/local/bin/vim:
StartEnd Type Open Ref GrpRef Name
exe 10 0 /usr/local/bin/vim
02be4000 22bf7000 rlib 01 0
On 9/15/06, steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
It is funny to because many people are set in their ways and don't
want to learn something new. Some are pround to have mastered
something and don't want to join the masses who, by using some
new tool, can do it faster and maybe better than
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, steve szmidt wrote:
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but
is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that
real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of
being a lower
On 9/14/06, steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback.
Use an .exrc file
set number
set ruler
set verbose
set showmode
set showmatch
set shiftwidth=4
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
snip
I'm
curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when
having a choice.
I'm definately not a hard core user but I prefer vi over vim in most
cases. I do install vim and use it with mutt for my emails.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:16:24AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
|Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you need to
|know the core system, and if you really need something else, fine, but
|you have to learn what is on the system. Learn vim, you have learned
|what is in
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the face
of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh.
what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-)
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:02:53PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the
face
of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh.
what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-)
what
mickey wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:02:53PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from
the
face
of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh.
what you really meant was `real men use
On Thursday 14 September 2006 04:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2006/09/13 23:49, steve szmidt wrote:
My reference to coding with vi/vim means usually working on scripts, and
config files.
If you use it more, you'll find the differences get pretty
annoying when you have to switch between
On Thursday 14 September 2006 08:18, Terry wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
snip
I'm
curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim
when having a choice.
I'm definately not a hard core user but I prefer vi over vim in most
On Thursday 14 September 2006 02:11, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, steve szmidt wrote:
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier
but is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it
that real coders don't need some of them, or
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:38, you wrote:
steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A.
This is a good thing. Do you really want every command to just list any
possible information in a huge mess? Personally, I like to just get
steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I'm different in that I like change.
Who cares?
Why is this thread still being discussed? Install ViM and bash, and
alias ifconfig to ifconfig -A, and /you/ have /your/ perfect
system.
-mj
On Thursday 14 September 2006 00:10, you wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:53:04 -0400, steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
* Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented.
OMG, not this again
If you like bash install it.
It was simply a perception. I have not even checked but was
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:48, Adriaan wrote:
On 9/14/06, steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback.
Use an .exrc file
set number
set ruler
set verbose
set showmode
set showmatch
set shiftwidth=4
Thanks for the tip!
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:16, you wrote:
* Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented.
that one shows the research you did, which would usually save me from
feeling any reason to respond...
True, it was just a silly assumption when I all of a sudden had keyboard
scroll buffer
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:29:49AM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
(Say what you will about Linux being inferior in ways, it managed
to do what no other Unice did for all that time -- captured a
mainstream. A lot of development is being done benefitting most if
not all Open Source platforms because
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but
is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that
real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of
When I first got into linux and openbsd, I thought vi sucked. Then by reading
linuxtoday.com I ran into some articles about vi. One was from the creator of
vi and he explained why vi is the way it is (it was written in the days when
you didn't have a monitor, just a telepromptor). Then another
I use vim reluctanctly, but only because nvi lacks utf-8 support which
is a must have for me.
--
Sebastian A. Liem
On 9/13/06, Andrew Dalgleish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple. I'm
curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when
having a choice.
On 14/09/06, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the
face
of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh.
what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-)
Yep, I don't get what
On Thursday 14 September 2006 16:54, Paul Irofti wrote:
I use both on a daily basis, but I'll use vim every time I get the
chance because it's simply faster than vi when it comes to editing.
Well it's certanly been that for me too. Of course, I even still remember some
of the control keys for
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but
is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that
real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of
being a lower priority?
* Not needing -a on ifconfig - Now
... [various other misinformed half truths] ...
* Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback.
vi is completely current. I believe you are thinking of vim which
a bunch of linux distros install, and stupidly, alias to vi - it's not
the same thing. It is in ports,
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but
is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that
real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of
steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A.
This is a good thing. Do you really want every command to just list any
possible information in a huge mess? Personally, I like to just get the
info I ask for.
* Defaulting to bash, easier to
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:23, Bob Beck wrote:
... [various other misinformed half truths] ...
Not so, maybe you did not read it...
* Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback.
vi is completely current. I believe you are thinking of vim which
a bunch of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:53 PM, steve szmidt wrote:
Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life
easier but
is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is
it that
real coders don't need some of them, or is
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:53:04 -0400, steve szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
* Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented.
OMG, not this again
If you like bash install it.
VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more
keystrokes than it's newer versions. It
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple.
I'm
curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when
having a choice.
This is an easy choice. The base install should have
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple.
I'm
curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when
having a choice.
These days I mostly use vi, because it is already there.
39 matches
Mail list logo
