On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:23:00PM -0400, Robert G. Brown wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
>
>>
vi back then was little more than a shell on ed IIRC
>>>
>>> It was (for nvi, is) the visual mode of ex, which is/was an extended
>>> line editor in the lineage of ed, kind of a
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 22:54 -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:03PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >
> > "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Note that Bob and I started out on systems with far less than 100 MB
> > > of DISK and perhaps a MB of system memo
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
Although it wasn't my first machine [1], I did work with an
admittedly-old-at-the-time PDP-8 for a while in the early
1980s. It was used to run a Perkin-Elmer microdensitometer
(think quarter-million-dollar film scanner). IIRC it had
no non-volatile mem
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:03PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> "Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that Bob and I started out on systems with far less than 100 MB
> > of DISK and perhaps a MB of system memory on a fat SERVER in the
> > latter 80's. And the P(o)DP(eople)
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Kilian CAVALOTTI wrote:
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 01:37:16 pm Robert G. Brown wrote:
But show me a "programmer" who cannot work without their mouse
and a GUI-based text editor, who has to scroll slowly up and down or
constantly move hands from the keys to the mouse and back
Too much information.
Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Peter St. John wrote:
Fair enough, I'll settle for Gary Oldman. We'll let RGB have Anthony
Hopkins.
No, no, no. John Malkovitch.
The resemblance is actually fairly striking. Bald, pudgy, whiny
sardonic voice, sexy as all he
"Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that Bob and I started out on systems with far less than 100 MB
> of DISK and perhaps a MB of system memory on a fat SERVER in the
> latter 80's. And the P(o)DP(eople) made do with even less in the
> early 80's.
My first machine was a PDP-8. 4
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 01:37:16 pm Robert G. Brown wrote:
> But show me a "programmer" who cannot work without their mouse
> and a GUI-based text editor, who has to scroll slowly up and down or
> constantly move hands from the keys to the mouse and back to select
> even elementary functions, and
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Peter St. John wrote:
Fair enough, I'll settle for Gary Oldman. We'll let RGB have Anthony
Hopkins.
No, no, no. John Malkovitch.
The resemblance is actually fairly striking. Bald, pudgy, whiny
sardonic voice, sexy as all hell. Might even fool my wife...;-)
rgb
Pe
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:54:47AM -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
It is not even certain that the default, base install of a Linux
system will include Emacs
This just indicates a conspiracy of vi users. Or, more likely,
vi users complained that emacs was
Fair enough, I'll settle for Gary Oldman. We'll let RGB have Anthony
Hopkins.
Peter
On 7/22/08, John Hearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 16:19 -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
>
> > But I don't understand... if resources aren't an issue (and
> > certainly they haven't been for a
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 16:19 -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
> But I don't understand... if resources aren't an issue (and
> certainly they haven't been for at least a decade, since
> BIOSs started supporting El Torito) and systems programmers
> are *not* more likely to be vi users than emacs users,
>
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:54:06AM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>
> > It is not even certain that the default, base install of a Linux
> > system will include Emacs
>
> This just indicates a conspiracy of vi users. Or, more likely,
> vi users complained that emacs was in the default. Emacs users
>
>
>
> Bob Drzyzgula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > and I can assure you that it didn't have no stinkin' Emacs;
> >>
> >> It most certainly did, you simply didn't install it. :)
> >
> > Absolutely SunOS 1.1 did not include any version of Emacs.
>
> No, it didn't *include* it. As I said, we got g
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:54:47AM -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
> It is not even certain that the default, base install of a Linux
> system will include Emacs
This just indicates a conspiracy of vi users. Or, more likely,
vi users complained that emacs was in the default. Emacs users
aren't bother
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
By the time of SunOS 1.1, I believe there was Unipress emacs
around, as you note. In any case, the Suns I used of that vintage had
Emacs available. (I have a genuine Sun 1 sitting in my mom's garage
still -- double digit serial number.)
As I mentioned,
Didn't EVERYONE learn c by reading K&R? I started with joe because of
muscle memory in my fingers for WordStar but went to vi 'cause it's
almost everywhere.
Peter St. John wrote:
That's a nice point; I got thrown into the deep end by a bunch of crazy
mathematicians in the summer of 81: C, K&R
Bob Drzyzgula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > and I can assure you that it didn't have no stinkin' Emacs;
>>
>> It most certainly did, you simply didn't install it. :)
>
> Absolutely SunOS 1.1 did not include any version of Emacs.
No, it didn't *include* it. As I said, we got gosmacs from
Unipr
That's a nice point; I got thrown into the deep end by a bunch of crazy
mathematicians in the summer of 81: C, K&R, Unix, commodities forecasting. I
learned vi then. So at the time there was no choice.
My first experience with emacs I can't quite date; my macsyma program
crashed, the OS (whatever
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:49:22AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Bob Drzyzgula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This, I find, is a strong dividing line. By and large
> > (not with exclusivity, but IME there is certainly a trend)
> > systems programmers use vi and applications programmers
> > u
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:54:47AM -0400, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
>
> Gosling wrote his Emacs in 1981, and Unipress Emacs started
> shipping in 1983 for $399 per seat.
Sorry -- actually looking again I see it said $395, not
$399, not that this makes any difference. But thinking
back I expect that th
Bob Drzyzgula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This, I find, is a strong dividing line. By and large
> (not with exclusivity, but IME there is certainly a trend)
> systems programmers use vi and applications programmers
> use emacs.
I've seen more than my share of Unix hackers over the years, and I
all the guys (with long VMS experience) use(d) EDT, but I installed VIM a
week or two into the job. DCL wasn't so bad but your fingers are happy with
their happy editor.
But then we installed perl so DCL was pretty useless too, except for legacy
stuff.
Peter
On 7/21/08, Geoff Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTEC
Peter St. John wrote:
> (re line numbers) Ah, I should have said, that was in VMS. I did get VIM
> for VMS though but I was never a maestro. There are happier VMS
> installations with unix workalike interfaces, not there then though.
> Peter
What was your poison? EDT or TPU?
--
Geoffrey D. Jacob
(re line numbers) Ah, I should have said, that was in VMS. I did get VIM for
VMS though but I was never a maestro. There are happier VMS installations
with unix workalike interfaces, not there then though.
Peter
On 7/21/08, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> stephen mulcahy <[EMAIL
"Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Lux wrote:
>
>> Line numbers are handy when you get that
>>
>> "syntax error in line 34 of file xyz.c"
>
> Well, in jove this is just Ctrl-X-N (next error), but in other languages
> or contexts, Ctrl-Shift-< (top of file) Esc
"Robert G. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking of which, wouldn't it be a kick to design a programming
> language CALLED Rune, one that only can be used on GUI systems, that
> uses elvish runes for all the standard commands and parameters?
> Programming has become too easy;
Given how cr
Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Line numbers are handy when you get that
>> >
>> > "syntax error in line 34 of file xyz.c"
>> >
>> > too..
>>
>>Both emacs and vi will display line numbers if you ask them.
>>
>>Emacs has a really nice compile mode where it will compile in a second
>>window
At 09:50 AM 7/21/2008, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I like line numbers to help me figure out if I have a really long
>> line of text. Most text editors do a poor job of handling this
>> case, happily wrapping it, without telling you, so your key
>> navigation
stephen mulcahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter St. John wrote:
>> Line numbers are super convenient for peer-review, so humans can
>> refer to lines. I've written C programs just to preprend every line
>> with a consequtive integer.
>> Peter
>
> cat -n is your friend.
and if it didn't exist,
Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I like line numbers to help me figure out if I have a really long
>> line of text. Most text editors do a poor job of handling this
>> case, happily wrapping it, without telling you, so your key
>> navigation across the long lines looks really funky.
>
> Lin
31 matches
Mail list logo
