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

From: Timo Benk <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:12:48 +0100

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:43:09 +0100, "Sander van Dijk" <> wrote:
> On 1/19/07, Uriel <> wrote:
>> So are you saying that vi doesn't suck because some versions have
>> become so incredibly bloated and out of control that instead of using
>> an external mountain of junk from the 70's, have internalized the
>> mountain of junk and now it is part of the same executable as the text
>> editor?
> No, that's not what I'm saying. Vi implementations don't need to
> internalize the mess that terminal (emulators) are, just the stuff
> that the original vi (ab)used terminals for (such as cursor position).
> Such stuff used to be implemented on top of a borken terminal, but it
> doesn't have to be.
> Like I said before, keeping track of where inserted text goes, what
> text to replace, etc. is the task of the editor. Just like vi, ed does
> this too, except more roughly, on the (rather arbitrary) line level.
> Ed doesn't include "a mountain of junk" to keep track of where to
> insert text (at the line level), and vi implementations don't (need
> to) include a mountain of junk for that task either.

What a senseless discussion (IMHO).

If you don't like vi - Don't use it.
If you don't like ed - Don't use it.
If you don't like wmii - Don't use it.
If you like windows - Use it.

But, who cares something that offtopic?

This thread is imho a bunch of noise polluting the wmii ML. Maybe it's
time to update my /dev/null filter, i dunno.

Just my 2 cents,

Timo Benk - Jabber ID: - ICQ ID: #414944731
PGP Public Key:
Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 14:15:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:19:15 UTC