Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!peora!pesnta!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: edt or vi? Message-ID: <2529@phri.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Dec-86 22:48:18 EST Article-I.D.: phri.2529 Posted: Tue Dec 9 22:48:18 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 06:46:52 EST References: <241@tellab5.UUCP> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 28 Summary: Emacs can do EDT, sort-of In article <241@tellab5.UUCP> etan@tellab3.UUCP (Nate Stelton) writes: > 2. Is there a version of EDT that can run under UNIX 4.2(or3) BSD? Hopefully this won't start up another round of "Emacs is better than vi. No it's not! Yes it is! Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears army boots!". Without publicly stating an opinion as to which editor is better, I would like to point out that it is possible to make emacs behave like EDT. CCA emacs, for example (and this is *not* an ad for CCA), comes with a set of key definitions which sort-of emulates EDT. I suspect other emacs have similar emulation packages available. As I understand it, there are certain fundemental difference between emacs and EDT that make is almost impossible to do a perfect emulation. I personally have never used EDT, so I can comment further on that. > I realize that there are no correct answers to these, I was just hoping for > some discussion. As a prophylactic measure, may I respectfully request that if you have no useful information to add to this discussion, you don't say anything. We've had more than enough of the Unix/VMS, emacs/vi and troff/tex/scribe wars to last a lifetime. Personally, I prefer SOS and Runoff on TOPS-10 :-) -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 "you can't spell deoxyribonucleic without unix!"