My main complaint with the color coded editing is that the default colors are unreadable (indeed, often nearly invisible) against the black background in my terminal window. I know, I know, I should probably download a new color scheme. Trouble is, every time I've done that, it's given me fits about syntax errors and incompatibilities in the color scheme file. Setting "syntax off" lets me have nice green-on-black text with no hassle :)
"Set compatible" is less important and I'm finding myself using it less often of late. But I still tend to install some other vi on my systems (nvi most often in Linux, and xvi in Windows), whether it be alongside or instead of vim. --- Michael Brailsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm afraid I have to take exception to that statement. If I'm > > stuck with vim as my vi, I have to have at least "syntax off" and > > usually "set compatible" in a .vimrc before I can even think about > > getting any actual work done... > > Why? What is about color coded text that makes it difficult to > even think about getting actual work done? Are you aware of the > studies which show that color coded source editing is one of the > quickest ways to avoid mistakes, and is also a boost to > productivity? Why give up things like multilevel undo, quickfix > window, the ability to extend vim with ruby, python, perl, etc... > Why forfeit the wonderful filetype plugins of vim, filetype > indenting, etc... > > Of course you are entitled to use vim however you choose, but I am > just curious why (a few people) people don't like color coded source > code while editing. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://phantom.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
