Re: [wmii] Re: quick thanks... for wmii

Hi,

On 1/19/07, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> The only editor that replaced ed for Ken (and for tom duff, BWK and
> other demigods; and ironically even for Bjarne Stroustrup) is sam,
> which is basically a fancy version of the ed language plugged into a
> blit(ie., rio) terminal.
>
> But I'm sure he still uses ed and cat to write code from time to time,
> I know I do, and I'm no demigod.

So?. Even I write stuff using "cat << EOF" occasionally. That doesn't
mean that I believe that cat+sh is a better editor that vi (or ed for
that matter).

> Vim is shit, get over it.

If you're talking specifically about vim, I agree that it is indeed
overbloated; this is not true for vi in general though. See
http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/ for instance.

> P.S.: BTW, all the functionality you complain about missing in ed is
> available if you just run ed inside at rio terminal. If your terminal
> sucks ass don't blame your text editor.

So you agree that text selection is useful. It's nice that rio
compensates for ed's lacking features on Plan 9, but this doesn't make
ed a better editor all the sudden; it just means that Plan 9 is a
better thought through environment than Unix. I already knew that, but
it's not what we are discussing here (besides, ed is a Unix program
originally. What you basically say is that it's Plan 9 that makes ed
useful, not ed itself).

Greetings, Sander.
Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:12:40 UTC