On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 14:04:41 -0500 dmccunney <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, David Seikel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have a simple test to decide if I like an editor as a result of > > these decades of random editor usage. If I can't sit down with the > > editor and figure out how to do basic editing and saving in less > > than a minute (sans documentation), then in my opinion it's a crap > > editor. Both TECO and vi fail this test miserably, though oddly > > enough I have a soft spot for TECO. > > These days, the general assumption is that you can open a file in an > editor with "<editor> <filename>", and that once up, cursor keys can > be used to move around in the file and that text can be added where > desired by typing it at the cursor location and deleted with Backspace > or Delete keys. > > Vi originated in the days when some of those assumptions might not be > true. Some early terminals on Unix systems didn't *have* cursor keys > or F-keys. The vi command set and separation between input and > command modes was a result. > > Given where Toybox will be used, it's a reasonable assumption folks > running the included editor will already know enough of the basics to > deal with vi, even if they may prefer something else, so "Can they > figure out basic editing and saving without docs" is a non-issue. Boxes already has other editors in it that do pass my test. So having to deal with vi is a non-issue. Choice is a good thing, we have it. B-) > > killall -KILL vi > > > > OK, yes I know about :qa as well, killall is much more satisfying. > > B-) > > You *could* simply remove vi from your system. :-) While that's true, I can't do that to clients systems. I think one of them actually likes vi. > > Out of all the editors that I have implemented in boxes, I have used > > them all professionally, including the line editors buried inside > > emacs and vi. These days I prefer to use mc and mcedit for > > everything though, which is why boxes includes mcedit. So I'll > > dogfood mcedit, the rest I'll have to rely on others to tell me > > what I get wrong. > > We will. The big issue I can see is preserving "moded" editing in vi > and dispensing with it in the others. Actually, other editors have modes to. So also not an issue, and already solved. > > I have no plans to implement TECO in boxes, vi and ed are already > > there. > > C source is available for a port of TECO if anyone wants to build it, > but I don't see a need in Toybox. Stallman used ITS TECO as the > implementation language for Editing MACroS, the lineal ancestor of Gnu > Emacs, because it was what was available. It was a language in which > he could implement an editor. It took over as the standard editor at > MIT's AI labs, and he realized how successful his efforts had been > when he no longer remembered how to do things in raw TECO. We have > other languages in which you can write editors now. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
