From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: good vi editor for the mac
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc
Organization: SGI TechPubs


---
This whole discussion seems to have lost sight of the fact
that different users have different needs for their text
processing programs.  Some people are writing books.  Some
people are writing academic papers.  Some people are editing
code.  A program that's good at one of those tasks might not
be good at the others.

jmale@uranie.inria.fr writes:
|B.Scott||| To Tom:  Just what can't you do in MSWord 5.0 that
|B.Scott||| you can do in emacs?

|T.Pollard|> Are there any more hard-core emacs (or vi) users
|T.Pollard|> out there who can give Scott a more complete answer?

|Taken as a word-processor (a program intended to write
|documentation for instance, MSWords is a big (and expensive)
|shit.

Why do you think this?  I disagree strongly.  I think Word is
very handy for writing documentation.  Here's why I think so:

Word is the best text composing software I've ever used.  It's
what I choose when I have a choice.  It has some nice features
which facilitate the writing process:
    the outline mode
    repeat-last-edit (whatever it was)
    a useful ruler bar
    column selection
    paragraph formats which depend on other p-graph formats
    lots of feedback
MicroSoft is Satan incarnate, but Word is pretty good.  It
has some weaknesses:  It isn't good with multi-file documents.
Side-by-side text in Word 4 is a pain.  

Word is very weak with multi-file documents.  

|Just take a look to the output produced by LaTeX (or TeX), or
|even FrameMaker, and compare.

Framemaker is a layout program married to a half-assed text
editor married to a half-assed drawing program married to a
half-assed equation typesetter.  To be more specific:  we use
Frame here at SGI on our IRISES, and have almost completed a
migration from Word on Macs.  The writers are generally unhappy
about the switch, while the production & layout people are
happy.  Our layouts are now perfect, but the writing process is
clumsy & painful.  (The Mac version seems better than the UNIX
versions, because it has Mac-standard command key equivalents.)

Frame also has a number of UI rough edges which make its use
painful.  (No "repeat-last-edit" command, little-to-no feedback
on operations like file saves & search-&-replaces, a ruler that
will only let you edit one paragraph format at a time, and an
annoying tendency to lose your selection after normal
operations.  I have a lovely list which I've submitted to Frame
as RFEs.)

Frame's strength is in dealing with multi-file books.  It's
much better than Word at this.

(La)Tex's strengths seem to be its universal freebie
availability, and its equation typesetting.  It seems to do
quite nicely for academic papers, but I'd find it utterly
unsuitable for large documents.  (Like the multi-file technical
manuals I work on.) LaTex is inflexible, though.  (And the fonts
are *ugly*.) Nitpick:  (La)Tex is not an editor.  Troff isn't
either.  They're both typesetting programs that work with text
created with editors.

|Taken as a word-processor (in the sense of `emacs' or `vi')
|MSWord is still a big (and expensive) shit.

Taken as a word processor, Word is much much more usable than
emacs or vi.  Taken as a code editor, it's not useful at all.  I
can't think of anything better than emacs for editing LISP.  And
vi is lovely for standard UNIX ascii-file editing tasks.  But
how are you supposed to do paragraph formats with it?  Character
formats?  You have to use troff or tex with it.  

As a techwriter, I prefer WYSIWYG editors like Word. When I
write code or edit Usenet posts on my IRIS, I use "zip".  It's a
very fast mouse-based editor with Mac-like keyboard equivalents,
an electric C mode, and lots of vi-like features.  (Runs on
IRISes only.)

None of this helps the poor guy who was looking for a good
vi on the Mac.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"We programmers are not normal people.  We tend to have superior
memories, we actually grasp Boolean logic, we have formed priesthoods 
around the most egregious interfaces, and we have a firm belief
that the average citizen is in search of an editor for his daily C
and Pascal coding tasks.  We are not firmly rooted in the real world."
    --"Tog on Interface" 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc