Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

vim again

 [1/8] from: ingo:2b1 at: 26-Nov-2003 23:11


Hi Vimmers out there, I have a beta version of my rebol.vim so far ... goto http://www.h-o-h.org/rebol-vim.tgz (Sorry, not yet linked, and it seems I desperately need to update my page ;-) Kind regards, Ingo

 [2/8] from: maximo:meteorstudios at: 27-Nov-2003 10:47


ok I checked out vim last week, but I don't get it. why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text editing in the year 2003? is it just out of habit of using vi in the past? maybe its just the version of vim which installed itself, which just looked like a shell with vi loaded... did I miss out on something... there where no menue , no point and click features that I noticed... I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could code faster (within a text editor)! it can even do advanced stuff like replace/all in a collection of files and record macros for that 34 keystroke procedure you have to apply to those 104 items of text ;-)... I'm just curious, really, I'm not saying any vi(m) user is wrong, just that I don't understand. thanks for any replies trying to explain :-) -MAx --- You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in the end, being part of the problem is much more fun.

 [3/8] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 27-Nov-2003 17:11


Hi Maxim, On Thursday, November 27, 2003, 4:47:23 PM, you wrote: MOA> why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text MOA> editing in the year 2003? is it just out of habit of using MOA> vi in the past? Because it is much better? ;-) Actually, VIM is much, much more than VI. MOA> maybe its just the version of vim which installed MOA> itself, which just looked like a shell with vi loaded... did MOA> I miss out on something... there where no menue , no point MOA> and click features that I noticed... GVIM has menus etc., but I almost never use it. With the keyboard it's so much faster... MOA> I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could MOA> code faster (within a text editor)! If I had to go to something different than VIM, I'd use ION.pe. At least it's fully integrated with REBOL. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/

 [4/8] from: andreas:bolka:gmx at: 27-Nov-2003 22:03


Thursday, November 27, 2003, 4:47:23 PM, Maxim wrote:
> why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text editing in the > year 2003?
because editing in vim is ultra-efficient, once you get used to it. even in the year 2003, and recent developments (like jef raskin's LEAP(tm) for "the humane environment") look very familiar to vim users ;)
> I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could code faster > (within a text editor)!
how much keystrokes would you need to delete the next 7 paragraphs of text? -- Best regards, Andreas

 [5/8] from: tim:johnsons-web at: 28-Nov-2003 10:30


* Andreas Bolka <[andreas--bolka--gmx--net]> [031127 12:40]:
> Thursday, November 27, 2003, 4:47:23 PM, Maxim wrote: > > why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text editing in the
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> > I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could code faster > > (within a text editor)!
<sigh>Arguing over editors is *such* a waste of time. There's no disputing taste. <grin> The vim style of modal editing is ancient yes. But hugely efficient and extendable. The lisp style of treating data and code the same wasy is ancient yes. But hugely efficient and extendable. ------------------ | Rebol uses it. | ------------------ tim (Has used 'em all)
> how much keystrokes would you need to delete the next 7 paragraphs of > text?
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with unsubscribe as the subject.
-- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com

 [6/8] from: maximo:meteorstudios at: 28-Nov-2003 15:21


> <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 ;-) 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... 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 ;-)

 [7/8] from: tim::johnsons-web::com at: 28-Nov-2003 12:00


<G> Some irony here. Read on. * Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch <[maximo--meteorstudios--com]> [031128 11:41]:
> > > > <sigh>Arguing over editors is *such* a waste of time. There's no
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> 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.
I use vim extensively and love it. And I've barely touched the surface of it. The paradigm of modal editing (which allows one to use keystrokes as enhancement) *is* an acquired taste and I would not wish vim on anyone who didn't choose to learn it voluntarily. Some people like point-and-click, others prefer the keyboard, it's wonderful to have the option. Without going into the details, it is to my advantage to learn (x)emacs as well. I feel that it would be helpful for those who have particular editors, (whatever they may be...) To share information to help to make whatever editor they have more productive. For those of you using windows (I don't anymore for developement) two I recommend are 1)Boxer 2)Elan's Editor. In fact, regardless of the platform, it is worth investigating (in my opinion), how to use rebol to make rebol editing easier.
> 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 ;-)
:-) You'd fit right in with Alaskan sourdoughs.
> > <grin> > > The vim style of modal editing is ancient yes. But hugely efficient
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> lisp was one of the more modern approaches to handling computing > problems...
LISP is just about the oldest of programming languages. It's almost as old as I am. (Started about 1958, I think.
> as is reflected as how everyone (newer compilers and languages) is trying to get into that select club > > ------------------
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> MAx > (Is coding one ;-)
Aha! See above. Using rebol to do it? tim -- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com

 [8/8] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
> 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> MAx > (Is coding one ;-)
-Volker

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted