 |
 |
Vi is just as programmable as emacs. It's possible to write a vi macro that runs a turing machine. - David On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Cloutman, David <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I use nano, which is the same thing as pico, more or less. I wrote my > first web pages using pico in a unix shell. I always thought it was a > great editor. I use nano almost daily, even on my Windows machines. > > I just don't see the attaction to vi. I understand the need to know it, > but the fundamentalist furvor that some people have for the program > baffles me. > > - David > > > --- > David Cloutman <[log in to unmask]> > Electronic Services Librarian > Marin County Free Library > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > K.G. Schneider > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:09 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] K&R (was: Gartner on OSS) > > > > I now open up the vi vs. emacs discussion: > > > > http://xkcd.com/378/ > > > > (personally, I'm a BBEdit user, but fall back to vi as needed ... and > ex > > for those rare times when you have to tip into a Solaris box to fix > the > > vfstab and your TERM is completely hosed) > > > > -Joe > > Back when that was my choice, I used emacs exactly once, during which I > removed every instance of the letter "m" from a lengthy document. (When > I have to edit a file in my shell account, which is rare, I use pico... > yes, I know that makes me a sissy *and I don't care.*) > > K.G. Schneider > > Email Disclaimer: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm >