Chet Ramey wrote in <bbeafd3f-786c-fe60-cf87-0f7e202025f7(a)case.edu>du>: |On 1/8/20 4:46 AM, Rudi Blom wrote: |> That's a real big vi in RHL. | |It's vim. It is a tremendous effort of Bram Moolenaar and the vim contributors to maintain this codebase that can be configured in uncountable ways, just looking at the pre-configured feature sets that exist lead to tiny, small, normal, big and huge. As far as i know it has real support for languages of the world, which is a different thing than being UTF-8 all through the engine. (But i think emacs is better here, i see one markable emacs developer taking care on the Unicode list, regarding real BiDi support, for example.) With all my sympathy for pico at first and for long, then mg / ee / nano / jupp etc., and with my repeated tries to switch over to vile, in the last two decades i always came back home to vim, for the one thing or the other. Two endless loops in all this time. I only use the smallest thinkable subsets of features, though. (Only lumberjack-style editing here, anyway.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Chet Ramey wrote: It's also VIM on the Mac. -- Dave

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:08:59PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: I was gonna stay out of this thread (it has the feel of old folks somehow) but 2 comments: Keith did nvi (I can't remember why? licensing or something) and he did a pretty faithful bug for bug compatible job. I've always wondered why. I like Keith but it seemed like a waste. There were other people taking vi forward, elvis, xvi (I hacked the crap out of that one, made it mmap the file and had a whole string library that treated \n like NULL) and I think vim was coming along. So doing a compat vi felt like a step backward for me. For all the vim haters, come on. Vim is awesome, it gave me the one thing that I wanted from emacs, multiple windows. I use that all the time. It's got piles of stuff that I don't use, probably should, but it is every bit as good of a vi as the original and then it added more. I'm super grateful that vim came along.

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:41 PM Bakul Shah <bakul(a)bitblocks.com> wrote: I pretty much do the same thing. I think what I hate about vim is that it's almost, vi but not the same. My fingers screw up when I use it. For instance, he 'fixed' undo. I guess I learned my lesson from my time at UCB. Henry Spencer once said, "BSD 4.2 is just like UNIX, only different." I rather see something new and completely different than changing behavior that people rely upon.

make a new command, don't break the old one.... maybe offer a way to map the new one over the old -- but don't make it the default. and my lawn was lush and green before the snow came ;-) On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:07 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:

I feel like there is an option to get nvi behaviour now but I dunno why you want that. Are you seriously advocating for less? Because objectively vim gives you more. And it is faithful to vi, it has all the buffers so you can put stuff back that way. Maybe I'm clueless or I drank the koolaid, but I love vim. It's vi but better. On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:59:02PM -0800, Bakul Shah wrote: -- --- Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm

vim has an option to undo the vi way. "set cpoptions=u". There is a full set of vi-compatible options if you want them. "set cp" turns on full vi compatiblity. Funny, I see vim as the vi that comes with UNIX, and never learned the enhancements, but I just tried it out and I don't have the compatibility option set. I don't seem to have noticed. I guess I don't do the "undo toggle" all that often.     Mary Ann On 1/8/20 6:12 PM, Clem Cole wrote:

It doesn’t work the same way. I just tried it (vim-8.0.something). The way it is supposed to work is this: the first u undoes the last change. Then you keep hitting . to keep undoing more. Then if you went back too far, you hit u again, to undo the undo and further . will keep redoing. You can go back and forth this way as many times as you wish.

Short answer: there is no special case in nvi. P or p put back the contents of the last delete. u undoes whatever was the last change (including the last undo or redo). . repeats whatever was the last modifying command. A detailed answer would merely confuse you. At least my attempt at it! Suggest you try out various combinations in nvi and compare with vim.

Answering, but CCing COFF if folks want to continue. This is less about UNIX and more about how we all got to where we are. On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:24 PM Jon Steinhart &lt;jon(a)fourwinds.com&gt; wrote: No, really unusually when you think about it. vim is backward compatible except when it's not (as Bakul points out) - which is my complaint. It's *almost* compatible and those small differences are really annoying when you expect one thing and get something else (*i.e.* the least astonishment principle). The key point here is for *some people*, those few differences are not an issue and are not astonished by them. But for *some of the rest of us* (probably people like me that have used the program since PDP-11 days) that only really care about the original parts, the new stuff is of little value and so the small differences are astonishing. Which comes back to the question of good and best. It all depends on one what you value/where you put the high order bit. I'm not willing to "pay" for the it; as it gives me little value. Doug started this thread with his observation that ex/vi was huge compared to other editors. * i.e.* value: small simple easy to understand (Rob's old "*cat -v considered harmful*" argument if you will). The BSD argument had always been: "the new stuff is handy." The emacs crew tends to take a similar stand. I probably don't go quite as far as Rob, but I certainly lean in that direction. I generally would rather something small and new that solves a different (set of) problem(s), then adding yet another wart on to an older program, *particularly when you change the base functionality *- which is my vi *vs. *vim complaint*.* [i.e. 'partial credit' does not cut it]. To me, another good example is 'more', 'less' and 'pg'. Eric Schienbrood wrote the original more(ucb) to try to duplicate the ITS functionality (he wrote it for the PDP-11/70 in Cory Hall BTW - Ernie did not exist and 4.1BSD was a few years in the future - so small an simple of a huge value). It went out in the BSD tapes, people loved it and were happy. It solved a problem as we had it. Life was good. Frankly, other than NIH, I'm not sure why the folks at AT&T decided to create pg a few years later since more was already in the wild, but at least it was a different program (Mary Ann's story of vi *vs*. se if probably in the same vein). But because of that behavior, if someone like me came to an AT&T based system with only pg installed, so those of us that liked/were used to more(ucb) could install it and life was good. Note pg was/is different in functionality, it's similar, but not finger compatible. But other folks seem to have thought neither was 'good enough' -- thus later less(gnu) was created adding a ton of new functionality to Eric's program. The facts are clear, some (ney many) people >>love<< that new functionality, like going backward. I >>personally<< rarely care/need for it, Eric's program was (is) good enough for me. Like Doug's observation of ed *vs.* ex/vi; less is huge compared to the original more (or pg for that matter). But if you value the new features, I suspect you might think that's not an issue. Thanks to Moore's law, the size in this case probably does not matter too much (other than introducing new bugs). At least, when folks wrote did Gnu's less, the basic more(ucb) behavior was left along and if you set PAGER=more less(gnu) pretty much works as I expect it too. So I now don't bring Eric's program with me, the same way Bakul describes installing nvi on new systems (an activiity I also do). Back to vi *vs.* nvi *vs.* vim *et. al.* Frankly, in my own case, I do from having a window manager, different iterm2 windows and cut/paste. So even that extension to nvi, is of limited value to me. vim just keeps adding more and more cruft and its even bigger. I personally don't care for the new functionality, and the size of it all is worrisome. What am I buying? That said, if the new features do not hurt me, then I don't really care. I might even use some of the new functionality - hey I run mac OS not v7 or BSD 4.x for my day to day work and I do use the mac window manager, the browser *et al*, but as I type this message I have 6 other iterm2 windows open with work I am doing in other areas. Let me take a look at this issue in a different way. I have long been a 'car guy' and like many of those times in my youth spent time and money playing/racing etc. I've always thought electric was a great idea/but there has been nothing for me. Note: As many of you know my work in computers has been in HPC, and I've been lucky to spend a lot of time with my customers, in the auto and aerospace industry (*i.e.* the current Audi A6 was designed on one of my supercomputer systems). The key point is have tended to follow technology in their area and tend to "in-tune" with a lot of developments. The result, except for my wife's minivan (that she preferred in the years when our kids were small), I've always been a die-hard German-engineered/performance car person. But when Elon announced the Model 3 (like 1/2 the techie world), I put down a deposit and waited. Well why I was waiting, my techie daughter (who also loves cars), got a chance to drive one. She predicted I would hate it!!! So when my ticket finally came up, I went to drive them. She was right!!! With the Model 3, you get a cool car, but it's about the size of a Corrolla. Coming from Germans cars for the last 35 years, the concept of spending $60K US in practice for a Corrolla just did not do it for me. I ended up ordering the current Unixmobile, my beloved Tesla Model S/P100D. The truth is, I paid a lot of money for it but I *value *what I got for my money. A number of people don't think it's worth it. I get that, but I'm still happy with what I have. Will there someday be a $20K electric car like my Model S? While I think electric cars will get there (I point out the same price curve on technology such microwave ovens from the 1970so today), but I actually doubt that there will be a $20K electric vehicle like my Model S. The reason is that to sell this car because it as to be expensive for technology-based reasons, so Tesla had to add a lot of 'luxury' features like other cars in the class, other sports cars, Mercedes, *et al*. As they removed them (*i.e.* the Model 3) you still get a cool car, but it's not at all the same as the Model S. So the point is, if I wanted an electric car, I had to choose between a performance/luxury *vs*. size/functionality. I realized I valued the former (and still do), but I understand not everyone does or will. Coming back to our topic, I really don't think this is a 'get my lawn' issue as much, as asking someone what they really value/what they really need. If you place a high-value you something, you will argue that its best; if it has little value you will not.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:22 AM Jon Steinhart &lt;jon(a)fourwinds.com&gt; wrote: I chose emacs because of muscle memory (Both the VAX and TOPS-20 machines at school had emacs as the default editor) and also because it lets me program better. I didn't let the fact it accomplished that by trying to be an OS or LISP-M or whatever get in the way of using the best tool for the job. In the 90s this meant that I had to be careful about the machines I used it on. These days, it just doesn't matter. Mostly, though, it was finger muscle memory :) Warner

On Jan 9, 2020, at 9:21 AM, Jon Steinhart &lt;jon(a)fourwinds.com&gt; wrote: The Rand editor made good use of multiple windows. You could set things up so that two windows would scroll *in sync*. This is handy e.g. when you are looking at two columns or rows that far apart in the same file or in different files and too large so you need to scroll. Acme makes even better use of multiple windows. Right click on a compile error message in one window and the cursor moves the error causing line in the source file in another window etc. You can repeat as many times as you want. So I tend to think combining multiple windows and editing can be effective. Finding the "right cut" of functionality is not easy. Scheme or Common Lisp? Editors and a set of tools or an all singing all dancing IDE? Can one implement something like Photoshop as a set of separate tools that can be combined any way? What old style Unix tools give you is isolation and (one way) controlled communication. Can this model be generalized to a set of Lego blocks out of which one can compose even complex tools such as Photoshop as easily is an open question.

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 09:21:40AM -0800, Jon Steinhart wrote: That's just silly. I frequently open two panes on the same file. Lets compare: Your way: - click to open a new terminal - click on it because it's not where I want, move it - cd to where ever I am - vi whatever My way: :sp You are welcome to your opinion but to argue that multiple panes in vi aren't useful, fine, maybe not to you. Don't use them. Other people love that feature, that feature is why I tried emacs many years ago.

Clem Cole wrote in <CAC20D2NnR81koGXkGydDxHgzK-P+NzYDf3oX2vwXnbK0kArOAg@\ mail.gmail.com>: |Answering, but  CCing COFF if folks want to continue.  This is less \ |about UNIX and more about how we all got to where we are. ... To me endless undo of vim is great, and i am used to it. I think i could compile a version from ~20 years ago, supposed to be much smaller, and i would be ok with it. You have other windows open, ok, but you have typed this in a browser that consumes more memory than all the programs running here altogether have (real), within a codebase that consists of millions and millions lines of code. I mean hey, even though decades of development and tens of thousands of eyes passed, i see super simple compiler errors in gcc and clang, and except for optimization maybe not that much improvement in useful diagnostics, even though the executables are 150 times and more greater than that. For example i have a netrc parser which uses a fixed size target buffer, in a 90 lines function, with comments, empty lines, and a static structure of token types to test-iterate against, and with a possibly *off++=by;*off='\0'; one, but it took a Coverity.com run to detect it. (Actually it is worse, because this code is from 2014, and it seems only the combination of gcc 8.3.0 and the current cov-analysis-linux64-2019.03 could find it; not in August, when i checked for the second to last, but only for the last check.) |Let me take a look at this issue in a different way.   I have long \ |been a 'car guy' and like many of those times in my youth spent time \ |and money playing/racing etc. I've always thought electric was a |great idea/but there has been nothing for me. Note: As many of you \ |know my work in computers has been in HPC, and I've been lucky to spend \ |a lot of time with my customers, in the auto and aerospace |industry (i.e. the current Audi A6 was designed on one of my supercomputer \ |systems).  The key point is have tended to follow technology in their \ |area and tend to "in-tune" with a lot of developments.  |The result, except for my wife's minivan (that she preferred in the \ |years when our kids were small), I've always been a die-hard German-eng\ |ineered/performance car person.  But when Elon announced |the Model 3 (like 1/2 the techie world), I put down a deposit and waited. | |Well why I was waiting, my techie daughter (who also loves cars), got \ |a chance to drive one.   She predicted I would hate it!!! So when my \ |ticket finally came up, I went to drive them.  She was right!!!  |With the Model 3, you get a cool car, but it's about the size of a \ |Corrolla.  Coming from Germans cars for the last 35 years, the concept \ |of spending $60K US in practice for a Corrolla just did not do it |for me.   I ended up ordering the current Unixmobile, my beloved Tesla \ |Model S/P100D.  Corolla is not $60K. So you want 500 horse power, maybe. |The truth is, I paid a lot of money for it but I value what I got for \ |my money. A number of people don't think it's worth it.  I get that, \ |but I'm still happy with what I have.   Will there someday be a |$20K electric car like my Model S?  While I think electric cars will \ |get there (I point out the same price curve on technology such microwave \ |ovens from the 1970so today), but I actually doubt that there |will be a $20K electric vehicle like my Model S. Well, lucky you that you can and want to spend that much money for a, hm, car. |The reason is that to sell this car because it as to be expensive for \ |technology-based reasons, so Tesla had to add a lot of 'luxury' features \ |like other cars in the class, other sports cars, Mercedes, |  et al.  As they removed them (i.e. the Model 3) you still get a cool \ |car, but it's not at all the same as the Model S.   So the point is, \ |if I wanted an electric car, I had to choose between a |performance/luxury vs. size/functionality.  I realized I valued the \ |former (and still do), but I understand not everyone does or will. So i for one _totally_ - totally! - disagree. It really drives me up the wall. You drive around with a 600 kilogramm or even heavier battery. You car is about 2000 kilogram. That is a lot of resource that needs to be digged, transported, assembled .. recycled, as far as that is possible. It increases the load on the streets, you know, trucks have a factor of an impact higher than cars. I mean, in America the difference is maybe not that big since the average car is very big on its own, i think a pick up is the most-selled car there for many years, with each instance being worth at least 2 of the German and Austrian etc. top seller. You can add to that entire Europe, including England. The entire car community did know at the end of the 80s / beginning of the 90s what is necessary for better Otto and Diesel engines, and as of today, thirty years later!, not all engines are actually using these technologies. There is nothing new at all regarding technology, nothing!, except of course materials engineering and robotics. That is a political declaration of bankruptcy. And i hate BMW top managers starting over with "the problem is not the SUV driver, the problem is the 15 year old family shooting brake". That is antisocial, ignorant, reckless and homicidal. And it was clear what the future after those combustion engines will be, and that is hydrogen. That is fuell cell and tank in sandwich floor, with wheel hub motors. The latter has always been my favourite, even though it could increase moved mass, but i do not know. So 120 years after wheel hub we choose two on-axe to reduce production cost. That is composite material. Luckily even some market-based industries have shown the fertility and will to develop further beyond what was there about 120 years ago, unfortunately we the Germans not, except for rare military developments, also decades ago. I said 26 years ago the best would be if each and every citizen would gain such a chassis, and the body would be up to each and everyone, [why not] with some "Trabant 601 based default". Even Tesla was interesting, fifteen or so years ago. Because they used the Lotus Elite chassis, which is about <800 Kilogramm. I personally am and always have been a total fan of Chapman's Philosophy, the lighter, the more beautiful. And if you want comfort and industrial mass production, take the Mazda MX-5, it is 1000 Kilogramm, and has 160 horse power. Your Tesla is still more powerful, because it has more than 320 horse power, but it is much heavier around the corners, and much much less swift. Of course, i see here in Germany in practice all men above 50 need their SUV now (thanks America for this future relevant trend), and they look relaxed, meaningful, potent. Yet they are not. See above. And they are not, beyond that. They reflect reckless degeneration. Yes, the white men's sperm production has halved, their allergies and woewoes have increased, their abuse of substances is enormous, and different to normal native human beings, entirely senseless and not embedded into any cultural surroundings. I mean, the heck. This wave has started, we now already explore digging much more of the necessary resources in the Atacama and maybe already in some Portuguese nature resource. We have interesting things which are maybe ok, like the Honda e. In the ever growing mega cities with the necessary infrastructure "i allow you to" use such city cars. It may make sense. What does not make sense is installing thousands of kilometers of copper cable to build up an infrastructure for high voltage battery filling. Really. That is copper. You know how much resources are required to produce copper? And in third countries our industry does not even give the minimum shit and uses the cheap most poisening elements to do its dirty work. No! Yes, just this week i think the German "Die Zeit" had an article on trash, trash everywhere, the trash island in the pacific is now as large as Texas they said, i know i have read about this island of trash in an early 80s book on open sea (sailing) accidents at the friend of my father, about 35 years ago, i blindly assume it was smaller by then. So only the one copper factory in Germany he was writing about produces more Trash than all European households altogether. That is just one. No! But there you go along with batteries. I mean they (Tesla) seem to have made their homework regarding crash safety, though i also disliked the crash test standards 26 years ago, and still back crashs are not tested, and they bang a solid cube regardless of the misalignment of at least the major masses that happens in practice if an Escalade hits an AMC Pacer. They seem to have created a new user experience that is also much cheaper to build (i do not like it), the cars have a tremendous power, and California has a nifty Energy Mix and infrastructure to satisfy full throttle fun. (Maybe.) I admit i was happy once a german car manager said dismissive words about Tesla (yesyesyes!), but again, just to find out they were doing and heading out for exactly the same. Except battery technology, maybe. Yes, i think the Porsche Taycan has an interesting design, i like especially the profile, i could maybe even like the interieur, for that one, but it is too heavy and uses the wrong technology. And no wood. I for one would not spend that much money for a car anyway, but if, definitely not like that. If i buy a CRV Hybrid, or a Suzuki Vitara, then i can buy a Caterham, a Lotus Elise, and almost a Morgan 3-Wheeler all in addition to end up at that price. See, the latter three are almost hand-built by human beings which perform craftsmanship, they do real jobs, and can go home prowd or at least somewhat fullfilled. Small companies. Buying and refining mass production engines (here Ford, Toyota, and S&S). And the CRV technology will at later times simply replace the combustion engine with a fuell cell. And it has some natural thing in it, a wooden strip. I personally like the Vitara, because it is only 1300 kilogramm, can tow enough for me, has a glass roof that can be opened, has LED lamps, does not contain any leather (no more), and if they will use the cylinder deactivation that i demanded almost thirty years ago, and maybe bring in the little Hybrid system they now introduce to their Ignis and Swift, i would go for it. The new Subaru Forester has a 16.7 horsepower electrical add-on. Enough for city traffic jam stop and go! Fiat has the wonderful two-cylindre engine in Panda and 500, 85 to 105 horsepower. A wonderful engine! Ford also, it has a wonderful three-cylindre engine. (I am talking Europe here, mind you.) And next year -- and here it comes! -- next year Toyota will come over with the new Mirai, real fuel-cell, refined, and not as a SUV!, and i think i will buy myself that one. |Coming back to our topic, I really don't think this is a 'get my lawn' \ |issue as much, as asking someone what they really value/what they really \ |need.   If you place a high-value you something, you will |argue that its best; if it has little value you will not.    In the end all that is industrial shit. If you are a lucky man you are science or worked at Bell Labs. The rest is all industrial shit, may it be pharmacy or medicine or whatever else. With all the little ones trying to get their place at the sun, recklessly. It is up to everyone to work on its own reflection and awareness, and to bring that work into all the many which are incapable to or uninterested in doing that. And unfortunately most do not. They are never shown, too, which makes me sad. I will now listen to the Westminster Abbey chorus singing Miserere mei Deus, just to let you know. And think how it must have been by then, with simplemost illnesses and wounds killing everyone from poor to rich, and with bad weather or other pest causing starvation and death, with regional food only, if you were lucky, not kilos of meat with cost backlog every day, when in early morning hours in a dark church the first sunlight would fall through handcrafted art- and passionful windows. --End of &lt;CAC20D2NnR81koGXkGydDxHgzK-P+NzYDf3oX2vwXnbK0kArOAg(a)mail.gmail\ .com> --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

Yes, I totally agree. NIH was rampant at Bell Labs in the 1980s. Management pushed us to use the internal tools rather than external tools we liked better. 3B vs Sun comes to mind. Datakit vs TCP/IP.     Mary Ann On 1/9/20 7:54 AM, Clem Cole wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:35 PM Michael Parson &lt;mparson(a)bl.org&gt; wrote: Exactly... As my old (non-PC) 10th-grade calculus teacher used to say, "I'll give you partial credit when you can bring be me a female that is partially pregnant." To be you are either compatible or not. I would have been ok to have had an option that you could turn on that gave you new behavior (but make the user turn it on thank you). BTW: the cX command's behavior I also find annoying visually, but it does not screw up 30-40 years of programming in my fingers.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:13:45PM -0500, Clem Cole wrote: It's rare event when I disagree with you, Clem (sometimes it seems like we were separated at birth :) If it was compat by default then you wouldn't learn any of the new stuff. set compatible isn't that hard but we'd have to read docs to find that. Anyhoo, cross reference to Ted's thought that Linux didn't have to deal with the Gods of BSD so they could rip stuff out and try again, his point is that worked better than the BSD way. Compat is fine but if you want progress, sometimes you break compat. For me, I've got a .exrc that I've been carrying around for decades (has maps in it for some compat bindings to an editor I used on CP/M, it's _that_ old) and vim is perfectly happy with it. I mostly use vim as a vi compat but I regularly use 2 panes, that's super useful. It's progress and you can have compat mode easily, seems like a win.

On Wednesday, 8 January 2020 at 17:28:30 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: My vague recollection is that Rob Kolstad paid him to do it for BSD/386. As you say, licensing, and that BSD/386 *really* needed a vi editor. Does anybody know where Rob is? Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA

check out elvis https://github.com/mbert/elvis vi + syntax highlighting + clean help subsystem = ~ 25% of size of vim

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Nemo Nusquam &lt;cym224(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I was somewhat surprised by this, on IRIX 4.0.5H: /usr/bin/vi: symbolic link to ex -rwxr-xr-t 1 root sys 229376 2016-04-17 01:07 /usr/bin/ex /usr/bin/ex: mipseb demand paged stripped - version 2.10 % what /usr/bin/ex /usr/bin/ex: printf.c:2.2 6/5/79 -Henry