Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!cca!g-rh From: g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: vi vs emacs in a student environment Keywords: vi, emacs, editor wars Message-ID: <30905@cca.CCA.COM> Date: 13 Jul 88 15:43:13 GMT References: <399@cantuar.UUCP> <11418@steinmetz.ge.com> <6056@megaron.arizona.edu> <424@solaris.UUCP> <421@ns.ns.com> Reply-To: g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA Lines: 27 In article <421@ns.ns.com> ddb@ns.ns.com (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: >In article <424@solaris.UUCP>, wyle@solaris.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: >> Why Mitch (wyle@solaris.uucp) uses vi: >> >> 1) Availability: vi(1) is available on every unix box I touch. I don't >> have to INSTALL it FIRST!! > But it isn't standardly available on Primos, tops-20, tops-10, ms-dos, >cpm, macintosh, or lots of other places. Emacs is available (and in one >case standard) on all of the above. It's a much better choice for those >not limiting themselves to one environment. Having dealt with emacs on Primos, I should like to point out that *some* implementations of emacs are very piggy on system resources. On the other hand, tops-20 emacs is quite nice that way. One of the nicest editors I have used is IBM's xedit (given the constraint of working on big blue iron.) I've even heard hard core emacs fans admit that xedit is a good editor :-). It is a big win in a time shared environment with heavy usage because most of the work is done in the terminal (327x of course). I.e. you edit the screen using terminal hardware and send the entire screen to the CPU. This is not as good as having a work station, and much better than editors which make the CPU do all of the work. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.