18 Jul
2025
18 Jul
'25
12:24 p.m.
nvi does everything i need it to, it's help fits on a couple of screens,
and it's easy to remember it all. maybe if I hit a wall with it, I'll
reinstall vim, but for the screen stuff, don't need it. I don't live in
my editor, or even the command line, I just use it when it's convenient
- which admittedly is a lot of the time. But, it's the terminal that's
most useful, not vi. So, if I want more screen, I just open a terminal
window. My monitor has room for a dozen or so :) not including guake,
workspaces, etc... in the modern era, of course!
Will
On 7/18/25 05:09, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:29:21PM -0700, Bakul Shah
via TUHS wrote:
On Jul 17, 2025, at 7:52???PM, segaloco via TUHS
<tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
Going via
screen(1) can be more painful. If you want to copy some lines
from one file to another, you have to either create a temp file or
use the window systems's cut/paste buffer/clipboard. The latter can
actually works worse (if you have autoindent turned on for example).
Also the modal nature of vi/vim can wreak havoc (copied text can be
mistakenly interpreted as commands).
In vi you can yank lines in file1, paste in file2. And can share
options, tags etc. In the rand editor you can scroll two windows in
unison (handy if one shows column headings and the other some rows).
See acme for an example of a well designed multi window editor.
I was going to
respond to the screen stuff but Bakul beat me to it.
In vim, you just have a split view of the same file. Changes in
either window will show up in the other window. For example
vim foo.c # foo.c exists and has a 100 lines
:sp
now you have both windows looking at the same file
start changing something and it is done in both windows.
Screen is nowhere near that and using it to claim that nvi is fine
is missing the point by a country mile.
And I don't understand the dislike of vim. Sure, it's got a pile
of stuff that old time Unix people would dislike "cat came back
from BSD wagging it's tail" (or something that Rob said) but you
don't have to use any of that. For me, vim is a finger compat
vi clone that has some really really useful extensions, I use
:split
all the time. Saying you prefer nvi in the face of that is
something that makes no sense to me. I've used nvi, I get that
it is compat with Joys vi, but so what? vim is more useful and
it is also compat.
Time marches on, perhaps march with it?
--lm If you
just do ":E" it will put both windows on the current file,
exactly the same as vim. But both do it wrong (IMHO) as the second
window starts at the same place (e.g top of the file). In the Rand
Editor if the split is at line N, the bottom window shows lines N+1.
Exact same behavior for vertical split (the left and right side
windows show the same portions as before).
> On Jul 17, 2025, at 6:09???PM, Larry McVoy lm(a)mcvoy.com wrote:
>
> Not really the same. :sp splits your window in half and puts you in
> two different windows on the same file. Each window, in vim, is full
> on vi, you can do :e fillename and now that window is on that file.
Not
historic but as of present I shunt windowing off to GNU screen and just have separate nvi
sessions in each. This may speak to ignorance on my part regarding advantages of opening
multiple files in the same session in any given vi. I keep vim around for when I need the
value adds, but nvi is linked as ex/vi/view. I suppose it is nice to keep your window
configuration tightly coupled, but I also frequently have vi in one pane and am using the
others for od output and build/test cycle for disassembly projects.