On 1/19/07, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Vi is shit, and always has been and always will remain shit. Bill Joy
Ah, now I get it, I hadn't looked at it from that POV, very convincing :-)
> 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.
Nonsense. It happens to run on a terminal usually (on most Unix
systems) but that doesn't mean it's tied to them (see for instance
gvim).
> 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,
No arguing against that.
> which knew what tasks each component should concern itself with, and
> what things are none of its business.
Indicating _what_ you want to edit _is_ the editor's business. If you
disagree with that, you might as well say that ed is bloated because
it keeps track of the "current line"; this can be considered "not the
editor's business" by the exact same argument.
> 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)
If you believe that each and every implementation of vi is bound to
terminals I can understand this statement, but this just isn't the
case. Windows gvim has OLE support for instance (and doesn't run in a
terminal either). Note that I'm not saying that this is a "more
powerful enviroment", just that it's a different one...
Gr. S.
Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:49:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:19:12 UTC