Oldest religious war of all

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2004-08-10 07:22am

Let's see how SD.net stands on the issue!

admiral_danielsben · Post by **admiral_danielsben** » 2004-08-10 08:28am

I vote: neither. It's like trying to decide between a Ford Model T and an old Mack truck. I prefer almost any windowized editor (gedit, kedit, windows notepad, whatever). For old-style editors, pico and dos edit are the least bad (i've never tried joe, so I can't say about that).

ed is, of course, a 1901 Oldsmobile, complete with tiller. Pico is more a 1950's Ford Fairlane. Edit is a Henry J (1950's compact, cute, worked well, but didn't have a trunk). Notepad is sort of a grungy 1972 Dodge Colt. gedit and kedit are late-1970's-era Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic, respectively.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-08-10 09:58am

I started with vim, tried emacs, went back to vim for some reason. (I use the arrows in edit mode, so vi standard is still a problem for me.)

Pico is fine for regular text editing, but horrid for programming.

I do a lot of programming on remote Unix machines. I use the university's computer science Unix systems to do most of my assignments, so my code is up to date no matter where I'm physically editing from. So using terminal-based editors are a necessity.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-10 10:27am

I've never run into a problem with pico, to be honest.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-08-10 10:35am

I like Notepad

Terr Fangbite · Post by **Terr Fangbite** » 2004-08-10 10:48am

as much as i've worked in linux i've never had the pleasure of using either. I always used openoffice for everything and that seems to work just fine.

GoldenFalcon · Post by **GoldenFalcon** » 2004-08-10 01:37pm

I never got used to either, but I use pico.

ggs wrote:I like Notepad

-grabs his bat-

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2004-08-10 02:03pm

Blah, it's all about emacs. Anyone who does programming should look into emacs simply for the formatting and code highlighting abilities (mostly with XEmacs). This is expecially true when programming in Lisp/Scheme since I've never seen any editor do a better job at dealing with Lisp than emacs (helps that emacs is written in Lisp).

That said, I normally use JEdit these days since it has the nice code formatting like Emacs, but also tons of plugins for all kinds of development task such as function/member name completion, source control support, class browsing, and all the other goodies that make life SO much easier while dealing with large amounts of code.

Miles Teg

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-10 06:20pm

Vi(m). HJKL rules.

Vim also has formatting and highlighting.

I have never used Pico, though I did use nano for awhile- vim was the first editor I used, then switched to nano when using LFS, then emacs. When I switched to Debian I used gedit, then I switched to gvim, then just straight vim, due to the pointlessness of the GUI, and the fact that I can use GNU screen with console apps.

Besides, I've heard about problems with RSI due to using emacs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-10 11:13pm

Terr Fangbite wrote:as much as i've worked in linux i've never had the pleasure of using either. I always used openoffice for everything and that seems to work just fine.

If you need to do something over a low-bandwidth SSH connection or on a machine whose graphics driver you've fucked up during an upgrade of some sort, you need a barebones text editor like vi. I use vi all the time.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-10 11:38pm

Also Emacs takes a couple seconds longer to load, and I'm rather impatient. For something as lightweight as a text editor, I expect it to load almost instantly to allow me to change a few lines and exit.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2004-08-11 11:57am

I used vi to write C programs on Sun OS and SINIX machines in the late eighties.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-08-11 03:42pm

I don't particularily like either (I use NEdit for most of my heavy tasks and nano for those situations where I need to work in console mode.) However, given the choice between the two, I'd chose vi. Better to have a small, unobtrusive program that I don't like than a bloated monstrosity of a program that I don't like.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2004-08-11 04:54pm

I can't stand vi, and I've never used emacs so I'm shooting for the neither category until I get a chance to use emacs.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-08-11 08:44pm

Pico! I know people who use vi, and frankly, they're insane. Emacs in a GUI shell is pretty nice, but not plain old console-window/terminal based emacs.

Darth Paul · Post by **Darth Paul** » 2004-08-11 10:17pm

vi for sure, but neither is really useful for any serious amount of editing. Sure, emacs is highly customizable, but in a useless way - everyone customizes it differently, so you can't do anything on someone else's machine! Pico was ok, but I disqualify it since it isn't installed with the basic OS installation

Gud · Post by **Gud** » 2004-08-12 03:35am

Emacs is just plain awful.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-08-12 03:45am

vi just... works. It can annoy the hell out of you if you're not used to its totally fucked-up usage of the keyboard as well as the edit modes, but once you get used to that they sort of become transparent.

EMACS is basically the kitchen sink (isn't that in the code somewhere?) of editors. I've never really had much use for it, and anyway, some versions of vim include syntax highlighting.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oldest religious war of all

Choose

Oldest religious war of all