Does anybody have an Emacs quick reference file? If you do, please share. TIA, Jen On Monday 27 August 2001 17:25, you wrote: > On Tuesday 28 August 2001 04:34, Paul wrote: > > In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s words, written Mon, 27 Aug 2001 > > 15:01:00 -0400 (EDT) > > > > >a few days and it seems to me that vi is a lot easier thus far. The > > >CTRL-D/DEL > > >thing in emacs is a real hassle. I know that vi is intended for C > > >programming > > >and emacs for command interpreting/bash programming, so is it best for > > > me to use both? What are the advantages of each tool under different > > > circumstances? > > > > Pick one and stick with it. Some like vi, some like emacs. And some like > > gedit/nedit/whatever. > > I think it is good to have a choice, figure out what's the best for you, > > and then use it :) > > Paul > > Hmmm, well the ingredients of a jihad have we when first we seek to compare > and contrast emacs and vi. > > emacs has a more complex command structure and a MUCH better tutorial > > as well as bindings for many languages that gives you auto-indent, > color-coding, and even function stubs. > > As an editor it is not for speed typists so much as for folks who > concentrate on content. > > On the typical power outage crash your loss in emacs will be the last two > words typed or so. For vi, it may be larger. > > Actually you cannt really compare the two. Emacs can do shell things and > help you debug programs without ever getting out of the dark slate gray > (that sure looks pine green to me) screen while vi cannot. Whether this is > an advantage or disadvantage is a matter of taste, but I can tell you > this-- > > You can run X with just an xterm and you can call vi from it and you have > to exit to the xterm to do bash things, but you can run emacs as a window > manager/desktop environment and you can read mail and browse th web and > debug without ever exiting. > > vi was designed as a great improvement over the older "blind" text editors > like ed and ex which were really designed for efficiency on a teletype > style terminal. I remember using it and thinking how much better it was, > then I ran into MINCE (Mince Is Not Complete Emacs) and never looked back. > > vi has more than one mode which some like and some hate. > > When you come to the decision, it is a matter of taste. There are also > others out there, like joe which can be emacs-like or pico-like or > wordstar-like, and jed, which also can customize bindings. Look at each of > them a little while, learn how to change their styles, then go get nano of > nedit and look at them. An editor is a personal choice. Cooledit is liked > by some as well, and SIAG offers xedplus to further confuse the issue, then > if you want language independence or internationalizaion capabilities the > one to use is yudit. > > Forget it, it's too complicated to decide. Break out your Ada manual and > write one that can't be buffer overflowed, and make it your very own.... > :-D > > Civileme ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; name="message.footer" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: ---------------------------------------- -- Jennifer #221463 Yahoo IM: jlynn2k #include <wisdom.h> void ignorance (it offers no value)
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://wwww.mandrakestore.com
