So are you saying that vi doesn't suck because some versions have become so incredibly bloated and out of control that instead of using an external mountain of junk from the 70's, have internalized the mountain of junk and now it is part of the same executable as the text editor?
Yay, that is what I call progress! uriel On 1/19/07, Sander van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/19/07, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vi is shit, and always has been and always will remain shit. Bill Joy Ah, now I get it, I hadn't looked at it from that POV, very convincing :-) > And you got it all backwards, it is vi which tries to do what is not > supposed to do, and which *CANT WORK* without the help of a terminal > that is fundamentally broken by design. Nonsense. It happens to run on a terminal usually (on most Unix systems) but that doesn't mean it's tied to them (see for instance gvim). > That ed adapts so cleanly and elegantly to the Plan 9 environment it > is a testament to the genius and insight of the authors of ed and rio, No arguing against that. > which knew what tasks each component should concern itself with, and > what things are none of its business. Indicating _what_ you want to edit _is_ the editor's business. If you disagree with that, you might as well say that ed is bloated because it keeps track of the "current line"; this can be considered "not the editor's business" by the exact same argument. > Vi will never be capable of taking advantage of a new and more > powerful environment, because by design it is stuck in a environment > of the stone age(or some hideous reconstruction of such environment) If you believe that each and every implementation of vi is bound to terminals I can understand this statement, but this just isn't the case. Windows gvim has OLE support for instance (and doesn't run in a terminal either). Note that I'm not saying that this is a "more powerful enviroment", just that it's a different one... Gr. S.
