On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:30:10PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi, > > Larry Kollar wrote on Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:33:02AM -0400: > > > I've not used another editor where you can pipe chunks of > > text *ad hoc* through scripts or even awk/perl one-liners. > > That doesn't require vim(1) at all. I do that all the time > with vanilla vi(1), for example "!}fmt" to automatically > line-break a paragraph of text. > > If you are writing a book on a different topic, maybe it would be > best to not gratuitiously require vim(1), but just use POSIX vi(1)? > Of course, it's your decision, but you might want to at least > consider using standard tools, in particular where it is > tangential to the topic of your book. > > > My personal opinion is that the vi(1) family of editors has exactly > one advantage: that it's the standard editor, standardized by POSIX, > and hence available on each and every machine you come too. > Using vim(1) throws away the one advantage that the vi(1) family > had in the first place...
You probably like nvi then, it's as compat with the original as you could possibly imagine. I'm not a fan. vim is a significant improvement, infinite undo being just the tip of the iceberg. The original vi was a wonder in its time, a lot of usefulness in a pretty small binary. While I appreciate that, modern machines have more cache, a lot more cache on the processor, than the machines had in main memory. vim looked at that and said lets use it. I like that, it's useful.
