Re: vi or emacs?

Grishnav wrote:
> Jonathan Daugherty wrote:
> 
>> # I am trying to find a good shell editor. # # Which is better, vi or 
>> emacs?
>>
>> Um, emacs.
>>
>>  
>>
> He wanted a shell editor, not a replacement OS.
> 
> /oblig
> //don't really care
> ///vim>vi
> ////uses vim

   vim == emacs

The only thing that they [vim] are missing is the OS.  Vim is more like windows w/o the crashes. It's all built into the 
kernel.  Emacs is much more like linux.  It has sort of 'kernel space' and 'user space'.   It's much nicer.  It has a 
VM, and it runs a horrible language(LISP). [However, every os^h^h editor has things you dislike, afterall.]  Any 
language named after a speech impediment can't be any good.

But, many people have learned to live with LISP and that is enough since I don't.

Emacs is not afraid of innovation.  [Hence using things like 'Ctrl' "Alt/Meta", and 'shift']  Devs liked them so much, 
that keybindings became a perverted attempt to teach piano.  This is in contrast to the stalwart vim users, stuck in 
1970, prior to the invention of 'CTRL' and "ALT", etc.  Oh yeah, and the arrow keys.

Finally, I think that I speak for many of us, when I acknowledge the largest vaccum in the VI world - The lack of 
acknowledgement of it's true spritual alignment: http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/

Sincerely,
    Joshua

_______________________________________________
PDXLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pdxlug.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxlug
IRC: irc.freenode.net #pdxlug

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCLeYccweM6t71VHsRAiy+AJ9LEqqlqRzD26VI0xTfe+FOOAIiOACfZLbO
FlolfL65cbTtLkDFVbkKwmg=
=+R4C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----