From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3B57437F.96A9F824@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <boyd@fr.inter.net>, <13268.995496915@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sam vs acme
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:54:16 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d185f018-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

George Michaelson wrote:
> Its really hard to have any other set of expected behaviour and
> maintain rational thought processes while re-converting to what sam wants
> when the mouse is in that window.

But sam's button-2 menu is much better than the usual WM functions.
It all depends on what you are accustomed to (habits).
I regularly use "sam" on Windows, Solaris, and Plan 9;
I haven't found a more effective text editor.
I have in the past used TECO, which offers only two advantages:
	(1) more programmability (not limited to extended r.e.s)
	(2) multiple snarf buffers (Q-registers).
In "sam" I miss (2) much more than (1).