Bud Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sunday 21 January 2001 12:47, Rino Mardo wrote:
>
> > Well I think "nvi" is more close to the historical "vi" than "vim" or
> > others. Someone correct me if I'm wrong as looking at vim it seems
> > it's bloated and it doesn't feel "vi"-like. Comments, suggestions
> > are welcome for the list members benefits. Flamers > /dev/null
>
> One man's bloat is another man's feature set I guess. I have a little
> different perspective. I learned elvis on Slackware before I ever met
> the real vi. Then I got acquainted with vim on Debian.
>
> Now I have to use the real vi on some DEC/Compaq boxes at work -- sh as
> well, no bash. It makes me feel almost claustrophobic. I breath a
> little easier when I get back to my box and my bash and my vim.
>
> Different strokes for different folks, as they say. That's what I love
> about the Linux community. We have so many wonderful choices.
I use mostly vim and I find it's features VERY useful but I only use
small subset of them - the most often used ones are visual marking of
block, auto-completion of various stuff, history of various stuff
(search, : mode etc...), syntax color highlighting, ... I also mostly
use gvim because it has better colors then xterm (or other terminals,
all are limited to few colors while gvim can use any color available in
X), anther useful feature is split... there are some other fairly useful
features that I don't remember right now... the learning vi book from
o'reilly offers farily good comparison of vi clones because it has
chapters for each of the major ones that describes most extensions, I
don't remember everything but after reading it I decided to use vim...
one feature I was never able to make work exactly like I want to is
autoindent... (the C autoindent which is supposed to be smart).
erik
