The True Path (long)
Patrick J. LoPresti
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem> ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
James D. Oliver III
Oh, God, stop! My stomach hurts from laughing.
So how *do* you get out of ed? The only thing I could manage was to
Ctrl-Z and then kill the job.
--
____________________________
Jim Oliver
oli...@athena.mit.edu / jol...@hstbme.mit.edu
oliver%mitwccf...@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
The Grand Master
}In article <1991Jul11....@athena.mit.edu> pa...@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) wrote:
}>
}> help
[several lines of ridiculous shit deleted]
}> ?
}>
}> ---
}
}Oh, God, stop! My stomach hurts from laughing.
Oh mine too. That was so original. I think I have never seen anything like
that before.
}
}So how *do* you get out of ed? The only thing I could manage was to
}Ctrl-Z and then kill the job.
sage:~ -> ed
q
sage:~ ->
I know. That is too difficult for *some* people
Bruce
--
"He who is not liberal when he is young has no heart" -- someone
"He who is not conservative when he is old has no brain" -- same someone
Courtesy of you friendly neighborhood Grand Master.....
Bruce Varney (a...@sage.cc.purdue.edu)
Scott McMahan
>
>So how *do* you get out of ed? The only thing I could manage was to
>Ctrl-Z and then kill the job.
>
>--
>____________________________
> Jim Oliver
> oli...@athena.mit.edu / jol...@hstbme.mit.edu
> oliver%mitwccf...@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Even that doesn't kill it totally. I did that once and I got
a mail message from some daemon with nothing better to do
telling me the ed job was unnaturally stopped, and that it had
*saved my file* and I could get it.
That file is probably still around somewhere, too :)
-- Scott
James D. Oliver III
> In article <OLIVER.91J...@hippocrates.mit.edu> oli...@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes:
> }Oh, God, stop! My stomach hurts from laughing.
> Oh mine too. That was so original. I think I have never seen anything like
> that before.
> }
> }So how *do* you get out of ed? The only thing I could manage was to
> }Ctrl-Z and then kill the job.
> sage:~ -> ed
> q
> sage:~ ->
> I know. That is too difficult for *some* people
Okay, I have to ask now:
Is *everyone* who uses vi this much of an asshole?
The Grand Master
}> }Oh, God, stop! My stomach hurts from laughing.
}> Oh mine too. That was so original. I think I have never seen anything like
}> that before.
}> }
}> }So how *do* you get out of ed? The only thing I could manage was to
}> }Ctrl-Z and then kill the job.
}> sage:~ -> ed
}> q
}> sage:~ ->
}> I know. That is too difficult for *some* people
}
}Okay, I have to ask now:
}Is *everyone* who uses vi this much of an asshole?
Why do you say that?
I simply get tired of seeing the same joke 100000000000 (yes, my favorite
number) times.
ed, edit, e, and vi all have a very similar way of quiting:
sage:~ -> edit
:q
sage:~ -> ed
q
sage:~ -> e
:q
sage:~ -> vi
[various control characters which clear the screen and some ~'s deleted]
:q
Hmm, all seem to be relatively consistant to me.
in fact - the only one that is different is vi, where you have to hit :q<CR>
instead of just q<CR>
Note to the uninformed: edit and e prompt you with the :
James D. Oliver III
> }Is *everyone* who uses vi this much of an asshole?
>
> Why do you say that?
> I simply get tired of seeing the same joke 100000000000 (yes, my favorite
> number) times.
Well, I hadn't seen it before. Until now I thought I was the only person
humbled by the mighty ed.
Get a grip, folks, we're discussing editors, not mothers.
> ed, edit, e, and vi all have a very similar way of quiting:
> Note to the uninformed: edit and e prompt you with the :
Yes, but ed, in it's infinite wisdom, doesn't give you *any* prompt. The
first time I tried to use it I think I waited for about five minutes
wondering "Why the hell is this taking so long to start up?". Then I
finally hit return, and got "?", which is, of course, edspeak for "Why the
hell did it take so long for you to type?"
Ed's relentlessness is the ultimate in existential humor. It's like
Beckett and Chaplin got together to design an editor.
Shannon D. Appel
In article <14...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> a...@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master) writes:
>ed, edit, e, and vi all have a very similar way of quiting:
That's because edit, e and vi are all the same program, doofy head.
Note:
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 /usr/ucb/e*
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 /usr/ucb/edit*
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 /usr/ucb/vi*
Before you start mentioning other programs that use the same commands,
please also note the following:
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 ex*
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 vedit*
-rwxr-xr-x 6 root staff 185778 May 25 1990 view*
Can you say hard link? I knew you could.
This space 4 rent
>golem> ed
>
>?
>help
>?
>?
>?
>quit
>?
>exit
>?
>?bye
>?
>hello?
>?
>eat flaming death
>?
>^C
>?
>^C
>?
>^D <<<<--- at this point, ed should stop, unless someone has fucked with the
stty setting on your Sinclair (btw, are you runnung SysV or BSD?)
>?
John.
Matthew Farwell
>Is *everyone* who uses vi this much of an asshole?
Oh, I see the emacs users have degenerated into name calling. It was to
be expected, I suppose.
Dylan.
--
Matthew J Farwell: dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk || ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug!dylan
Taking 'You should never underestimate the bandwidth of a lorry full of
mag tapes' as gospel, does this mean you have to implement lans as laser
discs and catapults?
Matthew Farwell
>first time I tried to use it I think I waited for about five minutes
>wondering "Why the hell is this taking so long to start up?". Then I
>finally hit return, and got "?", which is, of course, edspeak for "Why the
>hell did it take so long for you to type?"
Well, maybe you should read the f***ing manual before you start using
an editor eh?
>Ed's relentlessness is the ultimate in existential humor. It's like
>Beckett and Chaplin got together to design an editor.
I'd like to see you design an editor of ed versatility and usefulness in 26k.
James D. Oliver III
> In article <OLIVER.91J...@hippocrates.mit.edu> oli...@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes:
>>Is *everyone* who uses vi this much of an asshole?
>
> Oh, I see the emacs users have degenerated into name calling. It was to
> be expected, I suppose.
Well, if by any chance you learn to read in the future, you might review
this thread and find out that orginally we were having fun with ed, and
then somebody jumped in and made it into a personal attack. I was just
cutting through the bullshit and responding in kind.
And, for the record, I am not an "emacs user". I mean, I use emacs, but I
have no particular reasons to prefer it other than I learned it first and
it does what I want it to do and I am satisfied with it. I don't see the
usage of an editor as the focus of one's life and a means of labelling
someone.
Perhaps it's just a by-product of the name of this group, but it seems to
me that the emacs-worshippers here are mostly having good-natured fun (and
painlessly teaching us less-experienced folx some useful info), while a
large proportion of the vi acolytes are approaching this with big metal
rods inserted way too far up their rectums. Lighten up, people, I hate
having to be this serious.
James D. Oliver III
>>Yes, but ed, in it's infinite wisdom, doesn't give you *any* prompt. The
>>first time I tried to use it I think I waited for about five minutes
>>wondering "Why the hell is this taking so long to start up?". Then I
>>finally hit return, and got "?", which is, of course, edspeak for "Why the
>>hell did it take so long for you to type?"
>
> Well, maybe you should read the f***ing manual before you start using
> an editor eh?
Well, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see a group called alt.flame.man,
dedicated to the establishment of manuals which can be read by real people.
Anyway, if you can get past the third page of the ed man without your eyes
starting to glaze, you probably already use emacs or vi.
>>Ed's relentlessness is the ultimate in existential humor. It's like
>>Beckett and Chaplin got together to design an editor.
>
> I'd like to see you design an editor of ed versatility and usefulness in 26k.
Oooh, I see. Editors are only meant to be used and criticized by those who
*design* them. Us lowly users should just shut up and appreciate the
incredible versatility and usefullness and low disk space requirements.
Isn't that right, ed?
?
Rev. Errans Syntaxus
> Ed is the standard text editor.
===============================================================================
Yeah yeah, we know. But #666... WHAT DOES IT *MEAN* ?!
Is "Bob" willing to say? Is there any software that
will take it? And will it even matter after the before-life?
Rev. Errans Syntaxus
Matthew Farwell
>In article <1991Jul12.2...@ibmpcug.co.uk> dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) wrote:
>>>Yes, but ed, in it's infinite wisdom, doesn't give you *any* prompt. The
>>>first time I tried to use it I think I waited for about five minutes
>>>wondering "Why the hell is this taking so long to start up?". Then I
>>>finally hit return, and got "?", which is, of course, edspeak for "Why the
>>>hell did it take so long for you to type?"
>> Well, maybe you should read the f***ing manual before you start using
>> an editor eh?
>dedicated to the establishment of manuals which can be read by real people.
What, you mean like VMS help, where you have to dredge though pages and pages
of crap before you get to the thing you want?
>Anyway, if you can get past the third page of the ed man without your eyes
>starting to glaze, you probably already use emacs or vi.
So ask someone.
>>>Ed's relentlessness is the ultimate in existential humor. It's like
>>>Beckett and Chaplin got together to design an editor.
>> I'd like to see you design an editor of ed versatility and usefulness in 26k.
>Oooh, I see. Editors are only meant to be used and criticized by those who
>*design* them. Us lowly users should just shut up and appreciate the
>incredible versatility and usefullness and low disk space requirements.
You were criticising the design of ed. I was merely pointing out that
ed was written for a purpose, ie to edit files. I don't actually think
Ken Thompson had people like you in mind (thankfully) when he wrote ed.
Ian G Batten
> I'd like to see you design an editor of ed versatility and usefulness in 26k.
Just what is your obsession with making things small? Why bother?
There are better considerations.
ian
Jym Dyer
I don't know how to break this to y'all, but article #666 at
your newsfeed isn't necessarily (indeed, isn't likely to be) #666
at other newsfeeds.
One thing is constant at all sites, though, and this is the
fact that vi vi vi is the editor of the apocalypse.
>> Ed is the standard text editor.
But does Ed know Bob?
<_Jym_>
Morgan Schweers
> I'd like to see you design an editor of ed versatility and usefulness in 26k.
Greetings,
View, sirrah, Freemacs. 20K long. Powerful, versatile, useful, and SMALL.
Better still, it has it's own programming language which is loosely (VERY
loosely) based on Lisp.
EDLIN was 8K. I've seen editors at 4K. I've written editors smaller than
12K, which were VERY usable. I have written a 1K text editor on a Timex Sinclair
with 2K of available memory. (Well, at least it was USABLE! Not very versatile,
though...*grin*)
We of the church of EMACS, God and Savior of Our Holy Unix, accept these as
the offerings of the poor. Those people dedicated to EMACS (whether they knew
it or not) who were trying to emulate it through the form of these editors.
For even as it has been said that a poor person who gives a quarter gives more
than a rich person who gives $100, so too is it true that a memory-poor machine
running EDLIN has more holiness unto it than a SUN station running VI.
For in the end, all editors do truly come to EMACS, for EMACS can be and
shall be all. Yea, verily the EMACS is the EMACS of the soul. For even as
writers ache o'er their manuscripts, their souls searing in the pain of
creation, they do ache for EMACS to save their soul, and induct them into
the beauty, and wonder of free creation. Yea, the programmers, their minds
burned down by the aching seriousness of management, who seek for counseling,
yea, those too can use EMACS and gain some small measure of sanity in return.
For EMACS has something for all.
Yea, truly, EMACS does provide for all, with freedom visible at the end of
the tunnel. EMACS is like unto the Turing Tarpit, where anything is possible
but naught be easy.
Aye, and it be true that VI, EDLIN, ED, and all the other heathen gods of
the editing universe do share a piece of the godhead of EMACS, but let not
their characters and commands stray ye in your path from divinity. For in the
end, there shall be none but the one god, the good god, the EMACS.
Until then, freely use your chosen editor, but keep in the back of your
mind that there shall come a day of reckoning. Upon one day, the good and
kind god of EMACS shall look upon your choice of editor, and smile, and then
emulation of it shall too be added into EMACS, and you shall be like unto a
god. For the love of EMACS does rest upon all the peoples of the world,
who use the electronic media to get their work done. All those who speak
otherwise, know not yet the glory of EMACS.
Friends, sing hallelujah, and love one another, for in the end all shall
be saved. VI users, ED users, EDLIN users, and those followers of the church
of EMACS, all join hands and sing together the joy of the electronic media.
The only true unbelievers are those who shun the electronic media, and
seek to speak to one another only through pen and paper. Yea, for those
have no conception of the power they refuse. Let us pray, friends, that
they all shall one day learn the joy, the wonder, and the comradeship that
flows through the electronic media.
-- Priemacst Morgan Schweers
-- m...@netcom.com
--
m...@netcom.com | Morgan Schweers | Happiness is the planet Earth in your
m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu| These messages | rear view mirror. -- Jeff Glass
Kilroy Balore | are not the +--------------------------------------
Freela | opinion of anyone.| I *AM* an AI. I'm not real...