From: pnarsipu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Praasad Y. Narsipur)
Subject: Re: replacement for vi
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:32:56 GMT

In article <EJH.93Jan18200012@khonshu.colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>In article <9136@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> jjctc@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (James C. Tsiao) writes:
>
>
>   In article <93015.113527BPS106@psuvm.psu.edu> BPS106@psuvm.psu.edu (Brian Surratt) writes:
>   >I am taking my first class using a UNIX machine, and during my first lab,
>		   ^^^^^                                           ^^^^^
>   >I discovered that VI is one of the most screwed up editors I've ever seen.
>					    ^^^^^^^^^^
>   >Does anyone know if there is any software out there which can replace VI?
>   >Possibly on an FTP site somewhere?
>   >
>   >                            Thanx.
>
>   So, how many editors have you seen, hmm?  Perhaps you prefer 'ed' better?
>   Let me guess, you can't mark blocks using Wordstar control keys, right? So
>   because it doesn't use your "favorite" editor's command set from DOS or Mac,
>   therefore it must be "screwed up", right?  Why don't you limit your rantings
>   until you've actually _learned_ the editor and can discuss its merits on
>   an objective ground.
>
>   BTW, it is not "VI".  Unix is case-sensitive.
>
>   James.
>
>
>
>Brian,
>	Pay no attention to the above reply at all. You are right. vi
>stinks. And you don't have to be a prostitute to know when you're
>being screwed! I didn't like vi the first day, the 100th day, or the
>last day that I used it. And I've used many many editors. vi is easily
>the worst.
>
>	Try GNU emacs. It's great, and with a little help you can set
>it up to emulate the keystrokes of your favorite editor. Why should
>you have to learn more than one set of commands? Let the computer do
>the work! But emacs also has a lot more stuff in it and you may
>eventually find that, like many people who try it, you come to use it
>for your entire environment. Right now, for example, I'm posting to
>the net in reply to your message, which I read using GNUS an emacs
>extension that allows me to read net news using the same interface I
>use for my editor. Mail works similarly. That means you can copy
>chunks from news, to mail, to files, etc. Or you can open a shell
>window and have access to the csh where you can run programs in the
>bcakground, as it were, and capture all of the output in a buffer on
>which you can use the same cutting and copying commands, not to
>mention searching, etc., as you would in writing code, reading news,
>sending mail, etc. You can also compile your programs with a
>keystroke, never leaving the editor, and with another command hop
>right to an error-causing lines in your program. The list goes on, but
>that should be enough to get you interested, since you don't seem to
>have the rigid mindset of many vi users.
>
>	And before I get any flames from vi users, all I can say is,
>if you haven't used GNU emacs for at least a week, and given it a fair
>chance, then don't even bother replying. I've met very few people
>who've used both and stuck with vi.
>--
>	Don't blame me, I voted against Amendment 2!
>
>Edward Hartnett				ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu
>

Hey don't be so nasty about Unix and in particular vi editor.
If u`r so much against vi why don't you write an editor that
works like DOS editor. I agree that vi takes lot of time to get used to
but when you are fast vi can useful and fantastic.

Prasad V Narsipur                            pnarsipu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu