From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 63f0648c for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 375AE9BCA9; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:47:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0AD9BCAE; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:47:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4CA069BCA9; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:47:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (ns1.bitblocks.com [173.228.5.8]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033EA9BCC3 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:47:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F91156E42E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:47:19 -0800 (PST) To: tuhs@tuhs.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:57:40 -0500." <202001071957.007JveQu169574@coolidge.cs.dartmouth.edu> References: <202001071957.007JveQu169574@coolidge.cs.dartmouth.edu> Comments: In-reply-to Doug McIlroy message dated "Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:57:40 -0500." From: Bakul Shah MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <39513.1578430039.1@bitblocks.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:47:19 -0800 Message-Id: <20200107204726.B0F91156E42E@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [TUHS] screen editors X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:57:40 -0500 Doug McIlroy wrote: > McIlroy: > > [vi] was so excesssive right from the start that I refused to use it. > > Sam was the first screen editor that I deemed worthwhile, and I > > still use it today. > > Paulsen: > > my sam build is more than 2 times bigger than Gunnar Ritter's vi > > (or Steve Kirkendall's elvis) and even bigger than Bram Moolenaar's vim. > > % wc -c /bin/vi bin/sam bin/samterm > 1706152 /bin/vi > 112208 bin/sam > 153624 bin/samterm > These mumbers are from Red Hat Linux. > The 6:1 discrepancy is understated because > vi is stripped and the sam files are not. > All are 64-bit, dynamically linked. A source code comparison $ cd 2bsd/src/ex # this is a snapshot of May 9, 1979 $ wc *.c | tail -1 17176 56138 331865 total $ cd $PLAN9/src/cmd/ # what works today $ wc {sam,samterm}/*.[hc] | tail -1 11366 27236 201666 total $ cd /usr/src/contrib/nvi # what works today $ wc */*.[ch] | tail -1 51978 202926 1297043 total # actual count is slightly smaller I use nvi or acme. Haven't touched sam in ages. Having taught my fingertips nvi 37 years back, I can edit the fastest in it. But some things are easier in acme + with its multiple panes and smaller antialiased fonts it makes much better use of a retina display. iterm/screen + nvi can't match that. Until about 95 I used nvi & the Rand Editor (later Dave Yost's version). The latter was the easiest to use + it did multiple editing windows much before nvi or vim.