From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98371 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2015 15:37:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 95914 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jul 2015 15:37:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qg0-f54.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f54.google.com) (209.85.192.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:37:55 +0000 Received: by qged69 with SMTP id d69so44953373qge.0 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.55.33.78 with SMTP id h75mr46122657qkh.87.1437406673723; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eboyd53entlt1 (d27-96-48-76.nap.wideopenwest.com. [96.27.76.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 128sm11025482qhg.45.2015.07.20.08.37.52 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "cyg Simple" To: "'The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List'" References: <55A8EE5B.7030802@redhat.com> <0BFBD816-636E-4D63-A452-E1AE7AA1696B@etr-usa.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Vim wins again. :) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <04ac01d0c302$0b61e3e0$2225aba0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 > From: Stephen John Smoogen >=20 > On 17 July 2015 at 11:45, Warren Young wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 6:00 AM, Eric Blake 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. :) >=20 > Then you should have worded your original question better. Pithy question= s get > pithy answers. >=20 > 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 unles= s 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 t= hat > someone else uses emacs or vi or atom? And then enters the shell command line editor. One of the first things I d= o besides set the erase character is to set -o vi. IDE editors are another source of contention. Some allow for external proc= ess 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 ch= oice 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 cho= ice is over others is gvim, vim, vi or whatever is available if those are n= ot. -- cyg Simple