From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41257 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2015 12:00:35 -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 41215 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2015 12:00:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:00:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 332293D6F6E for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.113.107] (ovpn-113-107.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.107]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6HC0RlV029197 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:00:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Vim wins again. :) To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: From: Eric Blake Openpgp: url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Message-ID: <55A8EE5B.7030802@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2Tqipp3GOsoKXgWRtw92242nmEfpx3tfc" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --2Tqipp3GOsoKXgWRtw92242nmEfpx3tfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1165 On 07/08/2015 02:00 PM, Warren Young wrote: > Those who have been paying attention to the Linux Journal=E2=80=99s Reade= r=E2=80=99s Choice Awards for years, as I have, watched as Vim continually = increased its lead over Emacs to the point that they didn=E2=80=99t even bo= ther asking in the most recent survey. When they asked in 2013, Emacs was = at about 10%, behind Vim, gedit, and Kate: >=20 > http://www.linuxjournal.com/rc2013?page=3D44 >=20 > It is interesting to compare those results to the Stack Overflow Develope= r Survey: >=20 > http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2015#tech-editor >=20 Or this survey on opensource.org: http://opensource.com/life/15/7/your-preferred-text-editor All I can say is that these surveys are inherently biased (so it will never paint a full picture of preference, even if it is probably right that more people know vi than emacs), nor will it affect my personal choice (emacs all the way). > Thoughts from the other editor geeks here? You should know better than to provoke editor wars :) --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --2Tqipp3GOsoKXgWRtw92242nmEfpx3tfc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-length: 604 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVqO5bAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nqye0H/jlhx6I096zkJDwB1BIXTSke 0IYbrODX+TymT9CGQJ0/VNkhITC56g76MkJQYpaAAMj8K6HnzADHCE84FR/vdlWX p6kb0NBi59+7XcgQGdyBgsMEKq8IHiUN5kyp9UW1xjbu4rBDmAqMmYW6NwCHFDwL MYZwm5wB/dOfLYK1yIP8L/6q+jV5Ft9QtSf/E7gEjZjsLAdQ3F/d2M/4KlyFmJjR /w9ysFGosG5kDRZAp4PMj0BuZ5YvF7ZPpqqLOsqL9TYjQPqMXHihzlal3Neq0Ik2 jLgNkuYCuFVKgB+PvvmnOoH9h7K5IE5O7glspfxdCHRWS75JZN8O1WO3u9rYoyI= =476L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2Tqipp3GOsoKXgWRtw92242nmEfpx3tfc--