Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/16/21:57:08
T.W. Seddon (T DOT W DOT Seddon AT ncl DOT ac DOT uk) wrote:
: Dead_and_gone (alaric AT novia DOT net) wrote:
: > Am I the only person who uses vi?
: Heh, 'vi' may be hard to use and without handy djgpp-like features, but I
: think that I can maybe go one better... ;-)
: Am I the only person who uses MS-DOS Edit?
: I think I've tried every editor on Simtel and quite a few more (maybe about
: 100 or so!) and *not one* is as good as DOS Edit. (Although its replacement
: of tabs by 4 spaces is very annoying.) If my choice offends anyone then tell
: me a better editor and I'll use it!
: --
: --Tom
First, please let me say after reading some less graceful comparative threads
that I find it strange that any user would be offended because someone
somewhere might be having a good time -- or a productive programming
session -- with a different editor <grin>. Variety is the spice of life.
Thus I take the question not as whose editor is best, but why a given user
prefers a given editor, and I'm delighted to explain my preference for GNU
Emacs (32-bit DOS version).
First, I love not only the Compile option for C, but the Shell Command
option with its macro support for editing a PostScript language
illustration, pressing a single function key, and automatically saving the
file, running an interpreter to generate a displayable preview image,
viewing that image in graphics mode with another program, and then returning
to Emacs to refine the code further. After a dozen or three edit/preview
cycles in creating an illustration or maybe debugging a PostScript procedure
for use in lots of illustrations, I know why Emacs is fun -- and before
trying Emacs, I had used Norton Editor for over six years (and I still use
it for batch file editing and the like).
As someone using a monochrome monitor (or a halftone monitor from a
PostScript standpoint, maybe a "unified imaging model for display and
printer" <grin>), I don't get the benefit of syntax highlighting -- but the
automatic indentation features of Emacs not only make it easy to write more
attractively formatted code but can help in finding errors. The integration
between Emacs and GCC is also a big plus -- brought to us by DJGPP.
The Emacs docs and the built-in Info are also entertaining as well as
helpful, and I haven't heard of any other editor with that unique RMS touch
(initials standing, of course, for Richard M. Stallman, the once, current,
and future arch-developer of this collective effort).
This certainly is not to put down anyone who prefers vi, DOS edit, Brief, or
any other alternative -- and it may be to prove why it's good that I use
DOS, because at least the file name system gives me practice now and then in
the virtue of brevity <grin>.
May peace and diversity flourish,
Margo Schulter
mschulter AT mpu DOT com
- Raw text -