vi vs emacs in a student environment

[David Dyer-Bennet]

In article <424 at solaris.UUCP>, wyle at solaris.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes:
> Why Mitch (wyle at solaris.uucp) uses vi:
> 
> 1)  Availability:  vi(1) is available on every unix box I touch.  I don't
>     have to INSTALL it FIRST!!
  But it isn't standardly available on Primos, tops-20, tops-10, ms-dos,
cpm, macintosh, or lots of other places.  Emacs is available (and in one
case standard) on all of the above.  It's a much better choice for those
not limiting themselves to one environment.

> 4)  Speed:  vi(1) starts running faster.
  Not in my environment.  I leave gnu emacs as a background task for the
rare occasions I'm not working in a process window.  On dos I do most work
in the Epsilon process window, too.

> 7)  Management:  vi(1) needs NO system management effort. ***
  It doesn't?  Are you simply saying that the patch rate is lower?  I'll
certainly believe that.  But I've expended no system management effort on
the Gnu emacs here, the Epsilon at home, or the Mince at home, since I
first installed them, so the difference can't be too great.

> 8)  Macros: vi(1) has a simple, powerful macro language not requiring
>     the user to know and love LISP.
  I never did figure out vi macros, but emacs keyboard macros are
completely straightforward and obvious even to beginning users.

> 9)  Terminal support: vi(1) will run on any terminal, including paper
>     teletypes.  It needs no windows, graphics, or special features.
>     The configuration of Unipress emacs here can't work with an adm3a.
>     vi has special environments for low baud rates.
  The terminal-based emacs's I've used at low baud rates turn out to have
support for them.  I've yet to see an emacs which requires windowing, 
graphics, or special features.  Many do, however, require the ability
to clear the screen and position the cursor -- pretty common these days.

> 11) Inertia:  I've used vi(1) for a few years, have built up a large
>     family of macros for shell-script programming, troff text, and modula-2.
>     With continued commitment from vendors for support, why change?
  It's VERY hard to argue with inertia as a reason -- but then, that's
why I use emacs.  It goes back to what's more widely available, and it's
quite clear that emacs is the most widely available editor in the world.

  Obviously I have not addressed all your points.  Many of them were
correct.  (I consider some of them essentially irrelevant, but that's
another level of discussion.)


-- 
	-- David Dyer-Bennet
	...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
	ddb at viper.Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
	Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300