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

Vi is shit, and always has been and always will remain shit. Bill Joy
is a retarded moron that has done more harm to Unix than almost anyone
else in history(he is probably a close second to RMS).

And you got it all backwards, it is vi which tries to do what is not
supposed to do, and which *CANT WORK* without the help of a terminal
that is fundamentally broken by design.

That ed adapts so cleanly and elegantly to the Plan 9 environment it
is a testament to the genius and insight of the authors of ed and rio,
which knew what tasks each component should concern itself with, and
what things are none of its business.

Vi will never be capable of taking advantage of a new and more
powerful environment, because by design it is stuck in a environment
of the stone age(or some hideous reconstruction of such environment)

uriel

On 1/19/07, Sander van Dijk <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - 11:32:19 UTC