RE: Vim wins again. :)

["cyg Simple" <cygsimple@gmail.com>]

> From: Stephen John Smoogen
> 
> On 17 July 2015 at 11:45, Warren Young <wyml@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2015, at 6:00 AM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/08/2015 02:00 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thoughts from the other editor geeks here?
> >>
> >> You should know better than to provoke editor wars :)
> >
> > I was hoping for thoughtful commentary instead, like your answer. :)
> 
> Then you should have worded your original question better. Pithy questions get
> pithy answers.
> 
> What exactly do you want to hear from people that isn't something that has
> been said since 1986 USENET multiple multiple times.. Emacs does X better than
> vi? vi does Y better than emacs? In the end, it is really about what you the user
> find better for how your brain works. So you can't really know that unless you
> spend a month in each editor trying to see which one works better for your
> brain. If notepad++ is what works best for you then what does it matter that
> someone else uses emacs or vi or atom?

And then enters the shell command line editor.  One of the first things I do besides set the erase character is to set -o vi.

IDE editors are another source of contention.  Some allow for external process for the editor while others do not.  As Stephen says it is all a matter of preference of which color the bike shed is.  Some like red, others like blue and still others like green and yellow.  That said a comparison of choice doesn't matter and is a waste of publishing ink except that some like Warren love to hear about it and encourages that ink.  None the less my choice is over others is gvim, vim, vi or whatever is available if those are not.

--
cyg Simple