From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cowan@mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:07:04 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Unix taste In-Reply-To: <201408021538.s72Fcs7o021169@coolidge.cs.dartmouth.edu> References: <201408021538.s72Fcs7o021169@coolidge.cs.dartmouth.edu> Message-ID: <20140802160704.GG15007@mercury.ccil.org> Doug McIlroy scripsit: > Yes, ed for small things. It loads instantly and works in the current > window without disturbing it. And it has been ingrained in my fingers > since Multics days. I use ex exclusively, being willing to trade a little standardosity for a little more user-friendliness. I have no trouble switching to ed if necessary (as when /usr is not mounted, though nowadays /usr is typically on the root file system). It is certainly ingrained in my fingers; I'm using it to write this email. I usually write scripts for ed rather than ex, as I usually write shell scripts for a Posix shell, not for bash. Very occasionally I switch to vi mode, mostly so I can use the % key when editing Lisp, or to edit a highly repetitive line (try changing "one one one one one one one one one" to "one one one one one two one one one one" with ed/ex alone!) The only vi commands I know are h, j, k, l, x, i, %, and most importantly Q, which gets me back to ex mode. My answer to "What's your IDE?" is "Console running a bunch of 'ex' tabs and one shell tab for typing 'make'." > But for heavy duty work, I use sam, in Windows as well as Linux. I've tried to switch to sam several times, but so far without success. The lack of arrow keys is annoying for close-up editing, and since I use Windows as a terminal to hack remote Solaris or Linux systems, the lack of -r in the Windows version of sam is very annoying. > Sam marries ed to screen editing much more cleanly than vi. It has > recursive global commands and infinite undo. Like qed (whence came > ed's syntax) and Larry's xvi it can work on several files (or even > several areas in one file) at once. Agreed on all points. See esr's "A Tale of Five Editors" at (be sure to click the "Next" link for his analysis). I contributed much of the sam and acme/wily sections. (I know you've read this, since you are quoted in it, but others here may not have.) > I would guess that a vi adept would miss having arrow keys as well > as the mouse, but probably not much else. Sam offers one answer for > my question about examples of taste reigning in featurism during the > course of Unix evolution. "Reining in", please (peeve, peeve) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org Adam [...] did not want the apple for the apple's sake, he wanted it only because it was forbidden. The mistake was not forbidding the serpent; then he would have eaten the serpent. --Mark Twain