On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:19:49 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote: > You're absolutely right. I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in > awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to > me) and achieving great edits in next to no time. Other colleagues lived > inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached. > I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more > real time than the vi guys. Each to their own.
> Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case > very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, > where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well > crafted back at the factory. Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an > obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine. Latterly it > would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, > though it may well not be vi's fault. The fact is that miraculously 'joe' > seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances. As did > emacs .. if you could afford to wait. I like an editor to appear within 1 > second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors). Just to point out there's a connection between these two paragraphs. You shouldn't have to wait even a second for emacs to start if you "live" in it, ie use the server-start command and keep a running instance open. Then, instead of emacs, invoking emacsclient from the shell and applications will be virtually instant. Cheers, David.
