[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > On the contrary, Emacs is more suitable for developement purposes, and > actually for many other things.
Well, vim (and gvim) is actually quite powerful for development purposes. All the best (IMO) that emacs had was taken into vim already. > Personally, I practically *live* in my XEmacs session. You can't do this in vim, but I've never figured out why you'd want to. Back in the days when I logged in over an HDS terminal, I could see the advantage of all this. But in a modern X environment I would rather not. Netscape is a fine browser, exmh is an excellent mail reader, tkman is the best man page browser I've seen, bash supports scrollable history, etc. Why would I want to do everything in Emacs when there's so many other packages that do what they do best? I want an editor to be used for editing. But hey, different strokes for different folx. What really sets vim apart is that it is a *modal* editor. That means the same keys do different things depending on the mode (normal mode, insert mode, visual mode, etc). The advantage is that you can do 99% of your editing without taking your fingers off the home row. You don't need to use the cursor keys, page up/down, home, end and all the others. You *can* use those keys, but you can also just keep your fingers where they belong. That's a big step for some people, and I can understand why many people wouldn't want it. Viva la variety. Personally, I use gvim (or vim for real quick things), but I've installed nedit and encourage my users to use that. It's very simple, supports syntax-highlighting, fully GUI from the ground up, and customizable. Most of my users are economists and research assistants writing SAS and FAME (a time-series database) programs. They certainly have no need for a modal editor, and the learning curve for emacs can be a little steeper than they need. It's there, of course, and a couple use it 'cause they already knew it. rgds-- TA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
