Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by muzh » Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00:00



I suppose Vi is a very powerful editor -- I dunno, as I still haven't
steeled myself into putting in the effort to learn this monster with all its
abstruse commands.
Emacs is also a monster, but seems a little easier to use, even if it has
some strange commands also.
For the meantime I am chickening out and using pico -- simple enough for my
few neurones to make some sense out of --

cll (sent via Windows due to STILL unresolved freezing probs in Linux :( )


Quote:> Hi,

> I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
> the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

> I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
> just a good a choice for this, as well?

> I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
> clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
> sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
> for any insights.
> --
> Sky Masterson

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by ph.. » Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Both Vi and Emacs gather equal numbers of devotees - at the end of the
day you have to decide which you are more comfortable with. Personally I
use Gvim (Vi on steroids), as it is available across a wide variety of
platforms (I have used it on Win95,98,NT, HPUX, Solaris, and of course
Linux).

It provides more features than you will ever need, has really cool color
syntax highlighting, language sensitive indenting and brace matching,
split panes, multi level undo, on line hyper help, editable command
histories, really neat integration with make,gcc etc. The list goes on,
and I am sure Emacs will do pretty much the same.

Try them both. There is a steep learning curve with both. Stick with it
and either way you will end up with an editor for life :-)

see:

http://www.vim.org

Phil Whiles


> Hi,

> I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
> the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

> I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
> just a good a choice for this, as well?

> I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
> clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
> sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
> for any insights.


 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Jayan » Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00:00


starting another religious war..
try and use some of the choices, it won't take you
more than 4-5 files to decide which to keep..

Now the vi-emacs-pico-ed-kedit... war begins!

Jayan


> Hi,

> I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
> the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

> I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
> just a good a choice for this, as well?

> I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
> clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
> sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
> for any insights.
> --
> Sky Masterson

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
You know you are spending too much time on the internet when:
Saying 'Amen' at the end of your prayers,
                            reminds you of the <Send> button.
 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by William Wueppelma » Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00:00


In our last episode (Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:34:34 +0000),
the artist formerly known as Sky Masterson said:

Quote:>Hi,

>I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
>the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

>I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
>just a good a choice for this, as well?

>I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
>clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
>sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
>for any insights.

Uh oh...

The best advice (I think) is that you should know how to do basic editing
in both, and once you have that down, you will have a feel for which one
you want to master.

Despite what some people may say, both editors are powerful, both have
annoying and/or unintuitive quirks and neither is really all that hard to
nail down the basics on.  Most of the frustration comes in the first 5
minutes when you can't figure out how to insert text (vi) or delete text
(emacs), and you can't figure out how to exit either one.  After that, they
both are fairly straightforward to pick up basic editing skills, though you
do need to read the manual.

--
It is pitch black.
You are likely to be spammed by a grue.

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by youn.. » Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Both vi and emacs are excellent editors.

I use gvim (vi++++).  I made the vi choice because I work
on a lot of unix computers in my job.  vi is always available,
emacs is not.

On the other hand, if you work on only one or two computers
doing software development, or html almost exclusively, then
emacs is a reasonable choice.

It's great to have choice...


> Hi,

> I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
> the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

> I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
> just a good a choice for this, as well?

> I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
> clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
> sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
> for any insights.
> --
> Sky Masterson

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Matt Garm » Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> If anyone could specifically mention their thoughts on these two
> editors as they relate to HTML coding work, it would help
> finalize my decision?

I used to be hard-core pro-emacs (xemacs, actually).  However, one day a
professor of mine mentioned to the class the risk of keyboard injuries
(for people who sit at computers often, i.e. me).  He said the repetetive
motion of typing can be hazardous (which is kinda common knowledge), but
he also mentioned that "chording" poses more of a risk to typists.
Chording is pressing more than one key simultaneously.

(X)emacs makes extensive use of chording, even for the most common
commands.  With the worry of repetetive stress injury on my mind, I got
vim and installed it.  It only took me a day or two to migrate to vim and
be very comfortable with it.

Now, my likes and dislikes: I still like emacs' key sequences better,
despite chording.  I'm not too hip on the constant switching between
insert and command mode.  But I like vim a lot, too -- I think it's
prettier (color wise), it's syntax highlighting is great; also I like the
fact that vim loads ultra-fast compared to emacs, and the installation
space required by vim is much less than that required by a pretty slim
(i.e. few add-on packages) emacs installation.

Anyway: I've just got into jed, and you might want to give it some
consideration.  You won't find it standard on many Unix boxes, but it's
small, fast, and emulates emacs (or a couple other editors, actually).  It
has DOS "edit"-like pulldown menus, so it's super-easy to use and learn.
Jed also does syntax highlighting, code formatting, and everything you'd
expect from a "programmer's editor" (which I think is the intent of jed
anyway).

In short, give jed a try, it's nice.  http://space.mit.edu/~davis/
(by the way, the author of jed also wrote "slrn," a nice newsreader for
Unix).

Have fun,
Matt

--

"And through the window in the wall
 Come streaming in on sunlight wings
 A million bright ambassadors of morning."
        --Pink Floyd, "Echoes"

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Jon Skee » Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> Anyway: I've just got into jed, and you might want to give it some
> consideration.  You won't find it standard on many Unix boxes, but it's
> small, fast, and emulates emacs (or a couple other editors, actually).  It
> has DOS "edit"-like pulldown menus, so it's super-easy to use and learn.
> Jed also does syntax highlighting, code formatting, and everything you'd
> expect from a "programmer's editor" (which I think is the intent of jed
> anyway).

Another big plus for jed is that it's available for practically
everything - I regularly use it under Digital Unix, Windows, Solaris and
Linux, for instance.

--

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Tri Tr » Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:00


I highly recommend emacs in viper mode.  This way, you get the best of
both worlds.  I really enjoy the 2 display on emacs, but I don't like their
key combinations, ctrl, meta, esc, alt, shift, etc....


> Speaking as someone who has only used vi for 15 years I would definitely
> recommend emacs if you wish to do any serious development. I sit in awe of
> my emacs using colleagues who have all kinds of syntax checking colour
> support, heavy macros, filename completion and SQL interfaces. Alas in this
> case the saying "old dogs and new tricks" rings true. Just let me have a
> week to spare and I'll pick up that O'Reilly book and switch for good.
> Chris


> > Hi,

> > I am new to Linux, I would like to settle on one text editor for
> > the next 6 months, as I learn the OS, Perl, etc.

> > I am told that ``Vi'' is a great editor for HTML coding. Is Emacs
> > just a good a choice for this, as well?

> > I have read very positive comments on Vi (for HTML coding), I am
> > clueless on Emacs for my needs. I am leaning toward Emacs out of
> > sheer reputation, but at this point, what do I know. =) Thank all
> > for any insights.
> > --
> > Sky Masterson

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tri Tram, Computer Science and Engineering at UCLA
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tram
 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Dustin Purye » Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:00



Quote:>Both vi and emacs are excellent editors.

>I use gvim (vi++++).  I made the vi choice because I work
>on a lot of unix computers in my job.  vi is always available,
>emacs is not.

>On the other hand, if you work on only one or two computers
>doing software development, or html almost exclusively, then
>emacs is a reasonable choice.

Or do what I did.. learn enough vi to be comfortable, but use emacs
when you can. I'm not saying one editor is better than the other, but
emacs is *powerful*, no questions about it.

---
Dustin Puryear
Visit the Baton Rouge Linux User Group at http://www.brlug.net

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Julian Midgl » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00





>>Both vi and emacs are excellent editors.

>>I use gvim (vi++++).  I made the vi choice because I work
>>on a lot of unix computers in my job.  vi is always available,
>>emacs is not.

>>On the other hand, if you work on only one or two computers
>>doing software development, or html almost exclusively, then
>>emacs is a reasonable choice.

>Or do what I did.. learn enough vi to be comfortable, but use emacs
>when you can. I'm not saying one editor is better than the other, but
>emacs is *powerful*, no questions about it.

I would second this- it's always useful to know enough vi to be able
to edit a few configuration files and the like, so that when you find
yourself on a system without any other editors installed you aren't
completely stumped.

Emacs is definitely my preferred choice for any significant quantity
of work, and for development work of any kind.  But some knowledge of
vi is always handy.

Julian

--
Julian Midgley

Zeus Technology                         http://www.zeustechnology.com

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Dustin Purye » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00






>>Or do what I did.. learn enough vi to be comfortable, but use emacs
>>when you can. I'm not saying one editor is better than the other, but
>>emacs is *powerful*, no questions about it.

>I would second this- it's always useful to know enough vi to be able
>to edit a few configuration files and the like, so that when you find
>yourself on a system without any other editors installed you aren't
>completely stumped.

>Emacs is definitely my preferred choice for any significant quantity
>of work, and for development work of any kind.  But some knowledge of

I can honestly say I would investigate the IDE's out a little more if
they would just duplicate the tab key functionality in emacs. Once you
use it there is no turning back.. :)

---
Dustin Puryear
Visit the Baton Rouge Linux User Group at http://www.brlug.net

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Steve Weis » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00







> >>Or do what I did.. learn enough vi to be comfortable, but use emacs
> >>when you can. I'm not saying one editor is better than the other, but
> >>emacs is *powerful*, no questions about it.

> >I would second this- it's always useful to know enough vi to be able
> >to edit a few configuration files and the like, so that when you find
> >yourself on a system without any other editors installed you aren't
> >completely stumped.

> >Emacs is definitely my preferred choice for any significant quantity
> >of work, and for development work of any kind.  But some knowledge of

> I can honestly say I would investigate the IDE's out a little more if
> they would just duplicate the tab key functionality in emacs. Once you
> use it there is no turning back.. :)

Or (like me) you can take the compromise approach - use emacs in "vi
mode" :)

-S
--
"If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just
drank
gin straight from the bottle."  - Garrison Keillor

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Coy A Hi » Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

>Or (like me) you can take the compromise approach - use emacs in "vi
>mode" :)

That sounds almost as sacreligious as running that 'winlinux' *
people were posting about a few weeks back.

Coy
--
Coy Hile

"Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do...."
Tennyson, "Charge of the Light Brigade"

 
 
 

Emacs v. Vi for Linux?

Post by Johannes Ni » Mon, 01 Nov 1999 03:00:00



> Another big plus for jed is that it's available for practically
> everything - I regularly use it under Digital Unix, Windows, Solaris and
> Linux, for instance.

There is also emacs for Windows (but I don't knof if it makes so much
fun...). I think that emacs runs on nearly all Unix variations.

Johannes