Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Aurora vs. others (Announce)

posted by marcov, 28.05.2008, 13:20

> > VI(M) is something meant for people that like pain and whips.

[rest vi clones description skipped]
> And still more vi clones exist (mostly 16-bit: steVIe, Elvis,
> XVI, Calvin, etc).

And Vigor! The most pain inflicting one of them all!!!

> They say that Emacs is hard on the hand but vi is hard on the brain.

They also say: "Emacs: great OS, bad editor"

> IMO,
> as long as you have online help (or self-documenting), it's moot. Vi tends
> to be lighter (usually single buffer, single window) and Emacs tends to be
> multi-buffer, multi-win, self-documenting, fully customizable.

Problem IMHO is that the customizability interferes with basic use cases. I want to spend my time editing text, not customizing my editor.

Note that for programming I usually use an IDE, not an editor. (some remote work with joe excluded). TP, TS, Delphi,FPIDE, Lazarus are the ones I used most. All in several versions. Three of them are TUIs with Dos versions.

> You'll
> almost always find some (static) vi pre-installed on various *nixes.

Only on the free unices. On commercial ones you are sometimes stuck with ed and "echo *" for dir, or worse, doing it with cat

I can operate all of these enough to install joe and minimal OS configuring.

Actually yesterday, I installed NetBSD on PPC, and it took me back to the days of Unix yore.

> P.S. I know you (marcov) already knew that vi was a full-screen visual
> improvement to ex, which was an improved ed (regex line editing, whee!).

And for dos users, ...edlin... The horror!

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 419 users online (0 registered, 419 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum