[REBOL] Re: vim again
From: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 28-Nov-2003 23:58
Am Freitag, 28. November 2003 21:21 schrieb Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch:
> > <sigh>Arguing over editors is *such* a waste of time. There's no
> > disputing taste.
>
> Not arguing... questioning, wondering why the 'powers that be' use it ;-)
>
I don't wonder why. If something can something vi can't, this powers teach it.
But i wonder how. :)
> If I'm going to waste (read as curse ;-) tens of hours to be as efficient
> as I am in other editors I use, I have to get a hint of why I'd want to
> agravate myself on the short term. :-)
>
> I have used vi in the past and altough tell me its superior, I've yet to
> see anyone actually using it properly, even after a while.
>
> thanks for all answers, even those that are yet to come.
>
> I'm not saying utra edit pisses further than vim... I'm trying to see what
> color vim's pee is ;-)
>
> sorry about that weird methaphor about the 'ol pissing contest ;-)
>
> > <grin>
> > The vim style of modal editing is ancient yes. But hugely efficient
> > and extendable.
>
> noted, thanks :-)
>
> > The lisp style of treating data and code the same wasy is ancient
> > yes. But hugely efficient and extendable.
>
> is the lisp way of thingking really older than its peers? I thought lisp
> was one of the more modern approaches to handling computing problems...
>
Dates back to 195* IIRC.
google>> lisp history
== http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/html/lisp/histlit1.html
Some things are modern for a very long time ;)
> as is reflected as how everyone (newer compilers and languages) is trying
> to get into that select club
>
> > ------------------
> >
> > | Rebol uses it. |
> >
> > ------------------
>
> And that's why I use it too :-)
>
> > tim
> > (Has used 'em all)
>
> MAx
> (Is coding one ;-)
-Volker
