Re: Low priority or real coders
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 11:09:03AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Highlighting makes source code impossible to read to someone who > isn't used to it. I'm really perplexed about how people think that > having each line of source code in six different colors somehow > makes things clearer. That's a pretty broad generalization, and pretty hard to defend - as others have pointed out, these things are all highly dependent on the person and the environment. Anyway, I did have something (small) to add to the thread: I sometimes like to do $ env TERM=vt220 emacs -nw somefile.c so that the highlighting is done only with bold type and background/foreground reversal. It makes things easier for me to pick out quickly, but it doesn't leave me feeling illiterate when I see code that isn't highlighted. Just my $0.02. -- Benjamin Collins [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Low priority or real coders
Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Some of us learned to use color to read things faster. > I've learned to read C very quickly without color. I just find color distracting... I know one person who uses color highlighting has a hard time reading code without it so I consider it a handicap in his case. I've spent a bit of time with vim's color highlighting and I just find it really, really annoying. -- "Do you even send e-mails?" "I told you, I'm from the Wild West. I write by hand." -- Chuck Norris
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 9/15/06 8:09 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: I'm really perplexed about how people think that having each line of source code in six different colors somehow makes things clearer. I presume you are pretty often perplexed about people when you met them? +++chefren
Re: Low priority or real coders
What do I care about the size of vim ? My development box has got 1G of real memory, and vim is the most single important tool on that box ! All I care about is that it starts up fast enough, and it does what I need it to do (visual highlights with v, and multiple windows). Heck, it's pretty small compared to what it does. If you want to look at people's development tools these days, have a look at eclipse.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 11:09:03AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > My faith in the non-Improved vi is reinforced every time I see > someone using vim with color syntax highlighting. Highlighting > makes source code impossible to read to someone who isn't used ^ > to it. I'm really perplexed about how people think that having ^ > each line of source code in six different colors somehow makes > things clearer. You learned to read, didn't you ? Some of us learned to use color to read things faster. The only bad thing about syntax highlighting is when it breaks, e.g., no color-highlighter can deal correctly with syntax interspersed with macros #ifdef'd.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 9/15/06, steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... It is funny to because many people are set in their ways and don't want to learn something new. Some are pround to have mastered something and don't want to join the masses who, by using some new tool, can do it faster and maybe better than the old method. Or maybe they aren't faster. Or maybe that depends on the person and the environment that they're working it. You do understand that many of us have used multiple editors seriously over the years and have settled on what we use based on personal experience? Oops, sorry, that must be my 'pride' talking, thinking I might disagree with the masses. I see doctors who spend ten years learning something. The last thing they want to hear is that their knowledge is now obsolete. Which is always the risk in any high tech industry like ours. Yeah, it's a risk if you work under a manager more interested in buzzwords than results. 'scuse me while I use 20 year old technology to get something done. Philip Guenther "The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 9/15/06, steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hehe, that might be a good point. Though I must say I usually like it. Maybe it's the break in monotony, pretty colors. Guess what I like about color is being able to spot something at a glance. It certainly is jarring when you point vi at file and your screen lights up like a bad acid trip. Then again, I like my colours and syntax highlighting - big yellow XXX and FIXMEs on a black background. Or bright red mismatched parentheses, brackets and braces. One more lets-all-complain-about-bloated-editors argument, here are startup times for nv, vim and gvim -f. As soon as they were ready I entered :q! vi: 0.007u 0.000s 0:01.34 0.0% 0+0k 18+9io 0pf+0w vim: 0.382u 0.242s 0:04.68 13.2% 0+0k 282+40io 0pf+0w gvim: 0.445u 0.250s 0:03.53 19.5% 0+0k 235+7io 0pf+0w I see doctors who spend ten years learning something. The last thing they want to hear is that their knowledge is now obsolete. Which is always the risk in any high tech industry like ours. Hopefully in the process of learning one's specialty, one also learns how to learn. In which case one can learn new tricks or a new trade. CK -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:09, you wrote: > It's pretty funny that it's taken this long for another religious > discussion on text editors to pop up on misc. With all the faith, > I would have expected it more often. > > My faith in the non-Improved vi is reinforced every time I see > someone using vim with color syntax highlighting. Highlighting > makes source code impossible to read to someone who isn't used > to it. I'm really perplexed about how people think that having > each line of source code in six different colors somehow makes > things clearer. Hehe, that might be a good point. Though I must say I usually like it. Maybe it's the break in monotony, pretty colors. Guess what I like about color is being able to spot something at a glance. It is funny to because many people are set in their ways and don't want to learn something new. Some are pround to have mastered something and don't want to join the masses who, by using some new tool, can do it faster and maybe better than the old method. I see doctors who spend ten years learning something. The last thing they want to hear is that their knowledge is now obsolete. Which is always the risk in any high tech industry like ours. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:16:24AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > $ ldd /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi > /usr/local/bin/vim: > StartEnd Type Open Ref GrpRef Name > exe 10 0 /usr/local/bin/vim > 02be4000 22bf7000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libcurses.so.10.0 > 00801000 208dd000 rlib 01 0 /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 > 044fd000 24501000 rlib 01 0 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 > 01af5000 21b26000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libc.so.39.3 > 09814000 09814000 rtld 01 0 /usr/libexec/ld.so > ... > $ ls -l /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 > -r--r--r-- 1 root bin 1005395 Jan 14 2006 /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 > -r--r--r-- 1 root bin39135 May 7 14:10 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 To be fair, you *can* build vim without internationalization support. which would make the libraries used by vim the same as vi. Or, you could make the argument that vi does NOT support internationalization. Although, on my linux box, I can make your point even better: $ ldd `which vim` libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x2abc7000) libgpm.so.1 => /lib/libgpm.so.1 (0x2ad22000) libperl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libperl.so.1 (0x2ae28000) libutil.so.1 => /lib/libutil.so.1 (0x2b048000) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x2b14b000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x2b376000) libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x2b48d000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x2b5e2000) libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x2b6e6000) libcrypt.so.1 => /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x2b7fd000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x2aaab000) $ ls -lah `which vim` -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2.6M Sep 12 01:57 /usr/bin/vim* Oink oink! Matt
Re: Low priority or real coders
Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Take the time to learn real vi. You might just like it. vi is on every > Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you need to Nah, it's ed that's like edlin
Re: Low priority or real coders
It's pretty funny that it's taken this long for another religious discussion on text editors to pop up on misc. With all the faith, I would have expected it more often. My faith in the non-Improved vi is reinforced every time I see someone using vim with color syntax highlighting. Highlighting makes source code impossible to read to someone who isn't used to it. I'm really perplexed about how people think that having each line of source code in six different colors somehow makes things clearer. Paul Irofti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I use both on a daily basis, but I'll use vim every time I get the > chance because it's simply faster than vi when it comes to editing. -- "Do you even send e-mails?" "I told you, I'm from the Wild West. I write by hand." -- Chuck Norris
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 16:54, Paul Irofti wrote: > I use both on a daily basis, but I'll use vim every time I get the > chance because it's simply faster than vi when it comes to editing. Well it's certanly been that for me too. Of course, I even still remember some of the control keys for Wordstar, for those old enough to remember. And then ther was that line editor in VMS. The hrm, good old days! -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 14/09/06, Gilles Chehade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: > Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the face > of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh. > what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-) Yep, I don't get what is so special about bash. Is it its bloatness that attracts people? [EMAIL PROTECTED] /home/mureninc ll `grep usr /etc/shells` ; uname -a -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 578964 Mar 2 2002 /usr/bin/bash* -r-xr-xr-x 2 root bin 159344 Dec 12 2003 /usr/bin/csh* -r-xr-xr-x 4 root root 95488 Apr 6 2002 /usr/bin/jsh* -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 201052 Feb 10 2004 /usr/bin/ksh* -r-xr-xr-x 2 root bin 159344 Dec 12 2003 /usr/bin/pfcsh* -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 201052 Feb 10 2004 /usr/bin/pfksh* -r-xr-xr-x 4 root root 95488 Apr 6 2002 /usr/bin/pfsh* -r-xr-xr-x 4 root root 95488 Apr 6 2002 /usr/bin/sh* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 358848 Mar 2 2002 /usr/bin/tcsh* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 474736 Mar 2 2002 /usr/bin/zsh* SunOS atlantic 5.9 Generic_112233-12 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1500
Re: Low priority or real coders
I use both on a daily basis, but I'll use vim every time I get the chance because it's simply faster than vi when it comes to editing.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 9/13/06, Andrew Dalgleish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple. I'm > curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when > having a choice. These days I mostly use vi, because it is already there. I used to prefer vim, but it is heading down the emacs path. Nice OS, but it needs a good editor. it's got one. Just go into emacs type 'M-x shell' then type 'vi'. --Bryan
Re: Low priority or real coders
When I first got into linux and openbsd, I thought vi sucked. Then by reading linuxtoday.com I ran into some articles about vi. One was from the creator of vi and he explained why vi is the way it is (it was written in the days when you didn't have a monitor, just a telepromptor). Then another article the author explained that he liked vi because he didn't have to move his hands far from the asdf jkl; keys to use all the functions of vi. From then on I forced myself to learn it. The only time I move my hands from the asdf jkl; keys is to press the esc key. I tried to learn emacs too but there's too must ctrl this and alt that and ctrl meta alt blah. Now I find myself making mistakes in other editors especially in MS wordpad because I'm so use to using vi. In that situation, I miss the features of vi and it's so much easier to do things in vi. I once demonstrated to my boss (who is a linux fan and doesn't know how to use vi) how to modify a config file for dns, he commented that he hated the vim on linux because it never works as easy as he saw me use vi on openbsd (he added something about vim on linux not being consistent too). > Take the time to learn real vi. You might just like it. vi is on every > Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you > need to know the core system, and if you really need something else, > fine, but you have to learn what is on the system. Learn vim, you > have learned what is in Linux, not what is in Unix. > > Nick.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but > is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that > real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of > being a lower priority? > > * Not needing -a on ifconfig - Now implemented. > * Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A. > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. > * Command prompt buffer not clearing but leaving at least one entry on the > line and not clearing with arrow down. > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. > > VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more > keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more attention to > track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an typical editor and yet > retained it's power. > > Some things are probably left with earlier versions due to priority, license > issues and no doubt some developers just plain like some things not to > change. What's on the horizon? vi does not try to be anything but vi. It is a constant others emulate. Personally for a IDE there is something to be said about mg or ?emacs. It is useful to use both IMHO depending whats being done.. But, that is neither here nor there.. Best Regards, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 11:49, Matthew Jenove wrote: > steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe I'm different in that I like change. > > Who cares? > > Why is this thread still being discussed? Install ViM and bash, and > alias "ifconfig" to "ifconfig -A", and /you/ have /your/ perfect > system. > > -mj You missed the point. But as you said, who cares? -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:29:49AM -0400, steve szmidt wrote:
> (Say what you will about Linux being inferior in ways, it managed
> to do what no other Unice did for all that time -- captured a
> mainstream. A lot of development is being done benefitting most if
> not all Open Source platforms because of the attention coming down
> the Linux shute. So in the end we all win regardless of the O/S.)
In many cases, this is simply not true. Much of the hardware support
added to Linux is prohibitively Linux-specific or not worth the
effort to bring over to OpenBSD (or other BSDs) -- assuming the
driver is something more than a wrapper around a binary. Much of the
new software developed for GNU/Linux systems is messy, unportable
and utterly useless on different platforms. Linux's popularity has
drawn developers to Linux, and they've developed Linuxy things. In
some cases, BSD users benefit, too, especially when licensing and
code portability aren't total disasters. In lots of cases, though,
we get nil.
And as you should know, Unix *was* the computing mainstream for a
long period. Not on home desktops (which didn't exist for most of
that period), granted, but on workstations and servers, Unix was The
Right Choice. IMHO, Unix *continues* to be the right choice in its
traditional environments, and has become quite useful on desktops
and laptops in the last decade or so.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| web:...http://www.lfod.us/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:16, you wrote: > > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. > > that one shows the research you did, which would usually save me from > feeling any reason to respond... True, it was just a silly assumption when I all of a sudden had keyboard scroll buffer after an upgrade. When I build boxes I try to make minimum changes and though I certainly could replace things and customers would not complain, I tend to keep each O/S as they come. But when I was faced with not having a scrolling through previous commands I usually loaded bash to get it. Now it's there so I just use the default shell. > > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. > > ...'cept of all the responses on this, people seem to have missed a few > key reasons why vim is not and should not be part of OpenBSD, even if it > was really vi. > > $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi > $ ldd /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi > $ ls -l /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 > > *oink* Good points. > Now, to an emacs user, vim may look pretty lean. > > However, OpenBSD is a multi-platform OS. Not everyone has an amd64 or even > the "legacy" i386 platform. A bloated editor is NOT AT ALL FUN on a slower > machine, such as a mac68k or mvme88k. When you call up an editor, it > should just come up, not start chugging... Splash screens aren't too cool, > either, for system stuff. True. > Take the time to learn real vi. You might just like it. vi is on every Hehe, same assumption. I've been using it on a daily basis for the last 11 years. > For the record: I maintain the FAQ using vi. I write scripts using vi. > When I stick my nose into code, I use vi. When I am teaching someone, > I teach them vi. vi is very capable. It does NOT limit what you > accomplish. Quite true. I heard of a magazine where they all used vi to typeset with... > I've had people encourage me to try vim. I've tried it. I didn't like > it...in part, because it was too close to real vi, but clearly not real > vi, so I started using it like vi, and it didn't "work". Plus, I found > some operational modes "quirky" and unexpected. Probably I could turn > knobs and make it work like I expect...but then, I've now got a > non-standard editor running in a non-standard way. No joy in that for > me... > > Nick. I can certainly appreciate your view. Thanks for the feedback. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:48, Adriaan wrote: > On 9/14/06, steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. > > Use an .exrc file > > set number > set ruler > set verbose > set showmode > set showmatch > set shiftwidth=4 Thanks for the tip! -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 00:10, you wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:53:04 -0400, "steve szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. > > OMG, not this again > If you like bash install it. It was simply a perception. I have not even checked but was surprised when the default shell included the keyboard command buffer. > > VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more > > keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more > > attention to track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an > > typical editor and yet retained it's power. > > This makes no sense. Vi is vi. > You're not confusing vi with vim, are you? Yes, as noted in the earlier email. :) -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe I'm different in that I like change. Who cares? Why is this thread still being discussed? Install ViM and bash, and alias "ifconfig" to "ifconfig -A", and /you/ have /your/ perfect system. -mj
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:38, you wrote: > steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A. > > This is a good thing. Do you really want every command to just list any > possible information in a huge mess? Personally, I like to just get the > info I ask for. No, as you can see I was referring to ifconfig. When I use it I usually want to see all the interfaces. Otherwise I agree, moderation is a good thing. > > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. > > This never happened. And the default shell has always been up to you, > it asks you when you run adduser. Its just root's default shell that > changed to ksh, not bash. Of course it's up to the user. Theough personally, I love that I can now type ifconfig and it does not require -a to list. > > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. > > No idea what this is about. If you are used to vim, you might like vim. > But alot of people expect vi to be vi, and nvi is a much better vi than > vim. Vim doesn't even paste correctly. If you want vim, install it > and alias vi=vim (not for root). Hmm, never heard of nvi. Of course you can install whatever you want. But you may notice that was not my point. > > Some things are probably left with earlier versions > > Its not a question of newer versions, you are talking about using > different software altogether, or adding extra "features" that many > people would consider either not needed, or just plain bad. Of course it is. Nah, though in the case of vim I _did_ forget it's really vim not vi you get, OBSD is evolving like anything else. Things gets improved upon as each release rolls out. Not keeping up with the internal development I was curious to see about those little changes being made to ease the use. And no, it's not a bitter complaint about this and that. OBSD is plenty good the way it is. I have my preferences as to what I like, and others theirs. Fortunately we can all pretty much have our own ways for a little effort. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 02:11, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, steve szmidt wrote: > > Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier > > but is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it > > that real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a > > matter of being a lower priority? > > When we do not need things, they become low priority by itself. When > we do not want them, they get zero priority or active resistance. > > I won't go into details, others have covered them. But you'll have to > take into account the history. BSD systems exist for a long time. > Personally I learned Unix 22 years ago on a BSD system. I have some > expectations of a Unix system based on that experience. When I log > into a BSD system, I feel at home. When I log into a typical Linux > distro, I feel alienated. I will strongly resist changes that only > cater for certain users, who just ignore history and only know the > Linux way of doing things, and draw wrong conclusions from that. > > -Otto OK. I know what you mean. I learned it some two, three decades ago myself. Worked on SCO, SUN and SGI on and off. It was very easy moving between the platforms, and annoying when you found things different than what you expected. But when I eventually ran into Linux in mid -90's. I liked a lot about it. It certainly has its problems, but as a desktop grew with my desire for a "better" window manager, and I simply did not want to be dependent on MS on my desktop even though they really tried to make a good desktop. Maybe I'm different in that I like change. Not drastic undo all you know kind of change, but I like it when something is done in a way that makes it easier, pretty, with new functionalities, and so on. If it can then muster in good reliability, or at least hope of improved reliablity, well I'm interested to see what is going on. At the same time I don't think there's one close to perfect O/S that does all. What gets silly are those O/S wars like we used to have between MAC and windows people in the -90's. Recognize what each do well and use them for all they got! For example; I love the security spearheading OBSD is doing. I love checking out the new KDE releases. The new integrated development tools, multimedia and so on. It's fun and help my productivity. (Say what you will about Linux being inferior in ways, it managed to do what no other Unice did for all that time -- captured a mainstream. A lot of development is being done benefitting most if not all Open Source platforms because of the attention coming down the Linux shute. So in the end we all win regardless of the O/S.) The underlying O/S, well I don't care too much what it is, as long as I have faith in the developers keeping a future there for me to invest in. MS ruined their former good name by being arrogant and not caring about their users. There's a lesson there we could all learn from. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 08:18, Terry wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > > > > I'm > > curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim > > when having a choice. > > I'm definately not a "hard core user" but I prefer vi over vim in most > cases. I do install vim and use it with mutt for my emails. Interesting, is that because of your familiarity of vi, or...? -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thursday 14 September 2006 04:28, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2006/09/13 23:49, steve szmidt wrote: > > My reference to coding with vi/vim means usually working on scripts, and > > config files. > > If you use it more, you'll find the differences get pretty > annoying when you have to switch between them. I particularly > dislike how the combination of `u' and `.' work on vim. Actually I've been using both on a daily basis over the last ten years. Unless you mean I don't fully use all the features of vi, which might be true. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
mickey wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:02:53PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from > > > the > > > face > > > of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh. > > > > > what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-) > > what said is that bash a load of incompatible boolshit. > bash is not progress. bash is ten steps back before middle ages. Bash is the only case of embrace and extend I am aware of in OSS. # Han
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:02:53PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote: > Marco Peereboom wrote: > >Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the > >face > >of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh. > > > what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-) what said is that bash a load of incompatible boolshit. bash is not progress. bash is ten steps back before middle ages. cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
Re: Low priority or real coders
Marco Peereboom wrote: Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the face of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh. what you really meant was `real men use csh/tcsh' right ? :-)
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:16:24AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: |Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you need to |know the core system, and if you really need something else, fine, but |you have to learn what is on the system. Learn vim, you have learned |what is in Linux, not what is in Unix. | |For the record: I maintain the FAQ using vi. I write scripts using vi. |When I stick my nose into code, I use vi. When I am teaching someone, |I teach them vi. vi is very capable. It does NOT limit what you |accomplish. | |I've had people encourage me to try vim. I've tried it. I didn't like |it...in part, because it was too close to real vi, but clearly not real |vi, so I started using it like vi, and it didn't "work". Plus, I found |some operational modes "quirky" and unexpected. Probably I could turn |knobs and make it work like I expect...but then, I've now got a |non-standard editor running in a non-standard way. No joy in that for |me... | |Nick. | Well I am writing this mail from my colorful vim view. I use mutt of course. I do agree that vim has bloat and is definitely slower than vi. I think the moment vi gets syntax highlighting I am willing to switch to vi. Vim has several features that vi doesnt have but then vi seems to have all the important ones like reading and writing to files or portions of them. Vim does have rectangular cut and copy pasting from multiple buffers read from multiple files. These are not must have of course. I wouldn't miss these things in vi. The real killer to me at least is the excellent syntax highlighting for nearly single file format under the sun. And it does a very good job of it. It has bugs of course but 99% of the time it works well. Tell me how to get this in vi and I will gladly switch. regards, Girish -- Whenever people agree with me I always feel I am wrong. - Oscar Wilde
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > I'm > curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when > having a choice. I'm definately not a "hard core user" but I prefer vi over vim in most cases. I do install vim and use it with mutt for my emails. -- Terry http://tyson.homeunix.org
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 9/14/06, steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. Use an .exrc file set number set ruler set verbose set showmode set showmatch set shiftwidth=4
Re: Low priority or real coders
steve szmidt wrote: > Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but > is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that > real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of > being a lower priority? over the years, one gets used to a certain amount of consistancy between different systems, and I don't mean "different versions of Linux". ... > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. that one shows the research you did, which would usually save me from feeling any reason to respond... > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. ...'cept of all the responses on this, people seem to have missed a few key reasons why vim is not and should not be part of OpenBSD, even if it was really vi. $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 277724 Sep 1 13:49 /usr/bin/vi -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1231228 Sep 1 21:03 /usr/local/bin/vim $ ldd /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi /usr/local/bin/vim: StartEnd Type Open Ref GrpRef Name exe 10 0 /usr/local/bin/vim 02be4000 22bf7000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libcurses.so.10.0 00801000 208dd000 rlib 01 0 /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 044fd000 24501000 rlib 01 0 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 01af5000 21b26000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libc.so.39.3 09814000 09814000 rtld 01 0 /usr/libexec/ld.so /usr/bin/vi: StartEnd Type Open Ref GrpRef Name exe 10 0 /usr/bin/vi 05c93000 25ca6000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libcurses.so.10.0 06e4e000 26e7f000 rlib 01 0 /usr/lib/libc.so.39.3 06e46000 06e46000 rtld 01 0 /usr/libexec/ld.so $ ls -l /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 -r--r--r-- 1 root bin 1005395 Jan 14 2006 /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.4.0 -r--r--r-- 1 root bin39135 May 7 14:10 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.3.0 *oink* Now, to an emacs user, vim may look pretty lean. However, OpenBSD is a multi-platform OS. Not everyone has an amd64 or even the "legacy" i386 platform. A bloated editor is NOT AT ALL FUN on a slower machine, such as a mac68k or mvme88k. When you call up an editor, it should just come up, not start chugging... Splash screens aren't too cool, either, for system stuff. Take the time to learn real vi. You might just like it. vi is on every Unix machine...it's like notepad in windows or edlin in MSDOS, you need to know the core system, and if you really need something else, fine, but you have to learn what is on the system. Learn vim, you have learned what is in Linux, not what is in Unix. For the record: I maintain the FAQ using vi. I write scripts using vi. When I stick my nose into code, I use vi. When I am teaching someone, I teach them vi. vi is very capable. It does NOT limit what you accomplish. I've had people encourage me to try vim. I've tried it. I didn't like it...in part, because it was too close to real vi, but clearly not real vi, so I started using it like vi, and it didn't "work". Plus, I found some operational modes "quirky" and unexpected. Probably I could turn knobs and make it work like I expect...but then, I've now got a non-standard editor running in a non-standard way. No joy in that for me... Nick.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On 2006/09/13 23:49, steve szmidt wrote: > My reference to coding with vi/vim means usually working on scripts, and > config files. If you use it more, you'll find the differences get pretty annoying when you have to switch between them. I particularly dislike how the combination of `u' and `.' work on vim.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, steve szmidt wrote: > Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but > is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that > real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of > being a lower priority? When we do not need things, they become low priority by itself. When we do not want them, they get zero priority or active resistance. I won't go into details, others have covered them. But you'll have to take into account the history. BSD systems exist for a long time. Personally I learned Unix 22 years ago on a BSD system. I have some expectations of a Unix system based on that experience. When I log into a BSD system, I feel at home. When I log into a typical Linux distro, I feel alienated. I will strongly resist changes that only cater for certain users, who just ignore history and only know the Linux way of doing things, and draw wrong conclusions from that. -Otto
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple. > I'm > curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when > having a choice. These days I mostly use vi, because it is already there. I used to prefer vim, but it is heading down the emacs path. Nice OS, but it needs a good editor.
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:49:29PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > > I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple. > I'm > curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when > having a choice. This is an easy choice. The base install should have ed, vi, and some other bits. After that it's up to you and I to install what we like. Some out there don't give a rat's ass for the differences between vi and vim, since they use something else altogether. FYI, I usually install vim. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ |
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:53:04 -0400, "steve szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. OMG, not this again If you like bash install it. > VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more > keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more > attention to track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an typical >editor and yet retained it's power. This makes no sense. Vi is vi. You're not confusing vi with vim, are you?
Re: Low priority or real coders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:53 PM, steve szmidt wrote: Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of being a lower priority? * Not needing -a on ifconfig - Now implemented. * Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A. * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. bash is *not* the default it's ksh. :) * Command prompt buffer not clearing but leaving at least one entry on the line and not clearing with arrow down. * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. Linux distros lie about this. The vast majority of them alias vim to vi. Welcome to vi. VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more attention to track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an typical editor and yet retained it's power. Install vim, alias it, and use a config that works for you. Some things are probably left with earlier versions due to priority, license issues and no doubt some developers just plain like some things not to change. What's on the horizon? -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose. iD8DBQFFCMZ95B7p9jYarz8RAuPtAKCfryuETZEULHOTJjmTgFh6F+OJQACghhqZ etOwTicjHMOvvgq3TSlSs5c= =sv3L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:23, Bob Beck wrote: > ... [various other misinformed half truths] ... Not so, maybe you did not read it... > > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. > > vi is completely current. I believe you are thinking of "vim" which > a bunch of linux distros install, and stupidly, alias to vi - it's not > the same thing. It is in ports, and you can install it on openbsd > quite well. Quite a number of developers who are in all other ways I > consider perfectly sane and normal individuals even use it. Ah, yes of course. Right you are! That link to vim can be misleading. > vi has 25 years of history behind it. When I'm a sysadmin and type > vi, I want vi with all it's ususal idiosyncracies so that it's > basically the same no matter what system I'm using, OpenBSD, Solaris, > AIX, HP/UX, RiscOS, etc. etc. etc. (except Dead Rat Linux derivatives That's probably as good an answer I can get why many use it. But, I prefer the occational ease of use when vim is available. Especially since it does not create any problem for me skipping between different vi/vim. I've not found it anything but a boon when I'm being a sysadmin. My reference to coding with vi/vim means usually working on scripts, and config files. In those scenarios I'll use what get's the job done the easiest, unless it's a security risk like telnet. The core part of the OBSD community is pretty hardcore which is good. But as one can see in the threads there are a lot of other users including even windows people who have never heard of vi before trying out some Unice. I don't get very emotional about either one and try to keep things simple. I'm curious to see how many not equally hard core users prefer vi over vim when having a choice. -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Low priority or real coders
steve szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A. This is a good thing. Do you really want every command to just list any possible information in a huge mess? Personally, I like to just get the info I ask for. > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. This never happened. And the default shell has always been up to you, it asks you when you run adduser. Its just root's default shell that changed to ksh, not bash. > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. No idea what this is about. If you are used to vim, you might like vim. But alot of people expect vi to be vi, and nvi is a much better vi than vim. Vim doesn't even paste correctly. If you want vim, install it and alias vi=vim (not for root). > Some things are probably left with earlier versions Its not a question of newer versions, you are talking about using different software altogether, or adding extra "features" that many people would consider either not needed, or just plain bad. Adam
Re: Low priority or real coders
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > Over the years one gets used to some small things that makes life easier but > is only slowly catching up on OBSD. I'm curious as why this is. Is it that > real coders don't need some of them, or is it just something like a matter of > being a lower priority? > > * Not needing -a on ifconfig - Now implemented. When was it the last time you tried? > * Not showing all I/F's by default in ifconfig, requiring -A. When was it the last time you tried? > * Defaulting to bash, easier to use - Implemented. Bash should be bashed. Its horrible garbage and should be banned from the face of this earth. We all know that real men use ksh. > * Command prompt buffer not clearing but leaving at least one entry on the > line and not clearing with arrow down. No idea what you are talking about. > * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback. Nothing wrong with STANDARD vi. Want more? Install a port. > > VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more > keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more attention to > track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an typical editor and yet > retained it's power. Install a port. > > Some things are probably left with earlier versions due to priority, license > issues and no doubt some developers just plain like some things not to > change. What's on the horizon? Nothing. > -- > > Steve Szmidt > > "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be > capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. > A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. > From the Declaration Principles > You should take a lesson from your quote.
Re: Low priority or real coders
... [various other misinformed half truths] ...
> * Out of date vi, harder to navigate and use, poor visual feedback.
>
vi is completely current. I believe you are thinking of "vim" which
a bunch of linux distros install, and stupidly, alias to vi - it's not
the same thing. It is in ports, and you can install it on openbsd
quite well. Quite a number of developers who are in all other ways I
consider perfectly sane and normal individuals even use it.
> VI is proabably the worst as it gets a lot of use. It requires a lot more
> keystrokes than it's newer versions. It also requires a lot more attention to
> track the mode it is in. The newer VI is more like an typical editor and yet
> retained it's power.
vi is vi. it should be vi, and no more. if you want a real editor,
use mg or emacs or if you're a bit wierd, even vim. However vim is NOT
vi.
vi has 25 years of history behind it. When I'm a sysadmin and type
vi, I want vi with all it's ususal idiosyncracies so that it's
basically the same no matter what system I'm using, OpenBSD, Solaris,
AIX, HP/UX, RiscOS, etc. etc. etc. (except Dead Rat Linux derivatives
where I have to blow away that retarded alias). When I'm coding I use
something else. (personally mg or emacs - IMO getting a better editor by
"improving" vi is like getting a better date by dressing your sheep in
prada and lulu lemon.) If I want vim I'll type vim. but when I type vi I
want *vi*.
-Bob
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 && not 1) != (! 0 && ! 1)) {
print "Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n";
}
