On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
.|Quoth Shachar Tal on Sat, Apr 03, 1999:
.|
.|Now seriously, folks. I use mostly vi, but for some tasks I use
.|ed. Both of them, as well as emacs, are powerful editors.
.|
.|But telling the guy to use pico was a mistake, IMO. Pico is the
Yes, Pico has less featurse then m$ notepad, so to use it
is just a waste of time. so the question is Emacs or vi.
I personaly am a vi user, never used Emacs, and im not planning to.
there's a few pages on the net that discribe the diffrence between
both editors.
>From http://people.aero.und.edu/~ineich/computerlinks/Vi_vs_Emacs.html:
=====
[...snip]
While Emacs users gloat about the power of Emacs, vi users are quick
to point out that all that power carries a price.
The biggest drawback to Emacs is that the executable program is
enormous. A bare-bones copy of character-based Emacs might consume
three or four megabytes of swap space on a Unix machine; the fully
equipped model with several modes loaded running under X Window can
easily burn ten megabytes or more, even before you load any files for
editing. vi, in contrast, consumes about a megabyte before loading
files.
[...snip]
If you are faced with editing any large file or collections of files,
especially source code, there is no better tool than Emacs. It is
worth every moment you'll spend learning the various command
sequences. When you get proficient enough, you'll find yourself
starting to write little elisp routines, and suddenly you'll find that
you are an Emacs guru, too. If you use vi, you owe it to yourself to
learn Emacs; if you use Emacs, it won't hurt to learn a little about
vi, too.
=====
I encorage you to look at the page,
it have some intersting links on the subject, like vi faq,
emacs faq, userguids, etc.
--
Guy Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
