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
>