2 Aug
2014
2 Aug
'14
3:38 p.m.
So Doug, ed? Or what?
Yes, ed for small things. It loads instantly and works in the
current window without disturbing it. And it has been ingrained
in my fingers since Multics days.
But for heavy duty work, I use sam, in Windows as well as Linux.
Sam marries ed to screen editing much more cleanly than vi.
It has recursive global commands and infinite undo. Like qed
(whence came ed's syntax) and Larry's xvi it can work on
several files (or even several areas in one file) at once.
I would guess that a vi adept would miss having arrow keys
as well as the mouse, but probably not much else. Sam offers
one answer for my question about examples of taste reigning
in featurism during the course of Unix evolution.
Doug
2 Aug
2 Aug
4:07 p.m.
New subject: Unix taste
Doug McIlroy scripsit:
Yes, ed for small things. It loads instantly and works
in the current
window without disturbing it. And it has been ingrained in my fingers
since Multics days.
I use ex exclusively, being willing to trade a little standardosity for
a little more user-friendliness. I have no trouble switching to ed if
necessary (as when /usr is not mounted, though nowadays /usr is typically
on the root file system). It is certainly ingrained in my fingers;
I'm using it to write this email. I usually write scripts for ed rather
than ex, as I usually write shell scripts for a Posix shell, not for bash.
Very occasionally I switch to vi mode, mostly so I can use the % key
when editing Lisp, or to edit a highly repetitive line (try changing
"one one one one one one one one one" to "one one one one one two one
one one one" with ed/ex alone!) The only vi commands I know are h, j,
k, l, x, i, %, and most importantly Q, which gets me back to ex mode.
My answer to "What's your IDE?" is "Console running a bunch of
'ex'
tabs and one shell tab for typing 'make'."
But for heavy duty work, I use sam, in Windows as well
as Linux.
I've tried to switch to sam several times, but so far without success.
The lack of arrow keys is annoying for close-up editing, and since I use
Windows as a terminal to hack remote Solaris or Linux systems, the lack
of -r in the Windows version of sam is very annoying.
Sam marries ed to screen editing much more cleanly
than vi. It has
recursive global commands and infinite undo. Like qed (whence came
ed's syntax) and Larry's xvi it can work on several files (or even
several areas in one file) at once.
Agreed on all points. See esr's "A Tale of Five Editors" at
<http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch13s02.html> (be sure to
click the "Next" link for his analysis). I contributed much of the sam
and acme/wily sections. (I know you've read this, since you are quoted
in it, but others here may not have.)
I would guess that a vi adept would miss having arrow
keys as well
as the mouse, but probably not much else. Sam offers one answer for
my question about examples of taste reigning in featurism during the
course of Unix evolution.
"Reining in", please (peeve, peeve)
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
Adam [...] did not want the apple for the apple's sake, he wanted it only
because it was forbidden. The mistake was not forbidding the serpent;
then he would have eaten the serpent. --Mark Twain
3562
days inactive
3562
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Doug McIlroy -
John Cowan