[TriLUG] vi vs emacs

[Ed Hill]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:47:29 -0400 "James Olin Oden" wrote:

> Why? Because I learned vi, and it worked and does work well for me.
> If it ceased to work for me (i.e. proved onerous to use in my daily
> work) I would try something else.   Also on the original unix system I
> was on (DG/UX running on an Aviion 4300...I think that is what it was)
> vi was all that was there.  So the use of vi was a very practical
> thing.  Had emacs been on the Aviion I was using I would have likely
> used it instead....I did draw the line at ed though (-;


But wait, ed is the *standard* editor!  ;-)


The above story reminds me of a friend who, when we received a few
brand-new HP-UX machines (model 715s), watched me struggle with vi since
emacs was not (yet) installed on them.  His quote:

  "If you don't know vi then you're not a sysadmin -- you're a
   sissy-admin."

I dropped what I was doing, got a vi-cheat-sheet, and immediately
learned just enough to edit the necessary files.

I now use both vi(m) and emacs.  Sometimes I find myself editing
my .emacs file with vi or taking a quick peek at .viminfo using emacs.
In both cases the editors do a decent job of getting the syntax
highlighting correct.  I interpret this as a sign that the vi(m) and
emacs developers like or at least respect each other.

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD  |  ed at eh3.com  |  http://eh3.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20070626/54c02039/attachment-0001.pgp>