Tried Ed and.

[Xavier Maillard]

.. I really loved it. Really simple to use (not simplist) and really powerful.

In fact, I will try it as my full-time editor for the coming days and see how it goes :)

--

- xma

GPG: BA4909B7 8F04DE1B

[Lewis]

In message <alpine.DEB.2.20.2...@maillard.im> Xavier Maillard <xav...@maillard.im> wrote:

> .. I really loved it. Really simple to use (not simplist) and really powerful.

> In fact, I will try it as my full-time editor for the coming days and see how it goes :)

My right hand works great, I think I'll cut off my left hand and see how
it goes.

Is there any way in which ed is superior to vi? No.

Is there any way in which vi is superior to vim? No.


--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... ooh,
it's all too much for me."

[Eli the Bearded]

In comp.editors, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> My right hand works great, I think I'll cut off my left hand and see how
> it goes.
>
> Is there any way in which ed is superior to vi? No.
>
> Is there any way in which vi is superior to vim? No.

Yes, that's what this group has been missing, editor religious wars.

Let the Hate Flow through you.

Elijah
------
ed is more philosophy of editing than a handicap

[Lewis]

In message <eli$20052...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.editors, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> My right hand works great, I think I'll cut off my left hand and see how
>> it goes.
>>
>> Is there any way in which ed is superior to vi? No.
>>
>> Is there any way in which vi is superior to vim? No.

> Yes, that's what this group has been missing, editor religious wars.

No, vim does everything vi does, and more. Or you can use it EXACTLY
like vi. There is absolutely no reason to use vi or vim.

vi does everything ed does, and more.

> Let the Hate Flow through you.

Let the ignorance flow over you.

--
Exit, pursued by a bear.

[Xavier Maillard]

On Thu, 21 May 2020, Lewis wrote:

> In message <alpine.DEB.2.20.2...@maillard.im> Xavier Maillard <xav...@maillard.im> wrote:
>
>> .. I really loved it. Really simple to use (not simplist) and really powerful.
>
>> In fact, I will try it as my full-time editor for the coming days and see how it goes :)
>

> Is there any way in which ed is superior to vi? No.
>
> Is there any way in which vi is superior to vim? No.

That's not a matter of superiority but rather of efficiency ;)

I find quite effective how I can edit a file without moving cursor here and there.
VI and ED are quite different beasts. One is a line editor where the other is a VISUAL ED itor.

Having said that, I am really quick at dong simple stuff with Ed with little commands.

Remember: I come from the GNU Emacs eco-system, see how I regress ? :D

cheers

[Eric Pozharski]

with <slrnrcdrdj....@ProMini.lan> Lewis wrote:
> In message <alpine.DEB.2.20.2...@maillard.im> Xavier
> Maillard <xav...@maillard.im> wrote:

*SKIP*

>> In fact, I will try it as my full-time editor for the coming days and
>> see how it goes :)
> My right hand works great, I think I'll cut off my left hand and see
> how it goes.
> Is there any way in which ed is superior to vi? No.
> Is there any way in which vi is superior to vim? No.

ed is *only* editor that works with stdout redirected to file and/or
pipe. Lack of navigation makes think/move ratio to go through the roof.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

[Eli the Bearded]

In comp.editors, Eric Pozharski <why...@pozharski.name> wrote:
> ed is *only* editor that works with stdout redirected to file and/or
> pipe. Lack of navigation makes think/move ratio to go through the roof.

Pretty sure vim works fine that way now, too. I've never intentionally
used it, but have accidentally invoked that and seen the "Vim: Warning:
Output is not to a terminal" message.

I usually use vim in a mostly vi-compatible way, but I do find some
edits in ed go faster. I'm not against changing my processes to take
advantage of obscure vi features.

My blog mark-up tool makes use of nroff/troff style formatting commands:

https://github.com/Eli-the-Bearded/qaz-blog/tree/master/etc/qzpf

which I have added to the paragraphs setting ("paragraphs=ppp hrbri d")
which lets me use { and } movements on the source.

I stand by my assessment that ed is more a philosophy of editing than
anything else.

Elijah
------
follow ed1conf on twitter for ed advice

[Eric Pozharski]

with <eli$20052...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.editors, Eric Pozharski <why...@pozharski.name> wrote:

>> ed is *only* editor that works with stdout redirected to file and/or
>> pipe.

*SKIP*

> Pretty sure vim works fine that way now, too. I've never intentionally
> used it, but have accidentally invoked that and seen the "Vim:
> Warning: Output is not to a terminal" message.

Indeed, I can't make vim give up and just fail (also, 'cat | vim |& cat'
is amazing; however, going full-ex would be enabling though, I think).
However, it was multiple bash and sh subshells, redirections,
environment manipulations, tmux might have been involved too. The Thing
tried to do crazy things and sometimes failed at this. Life was so much
easier back then.

*SKIP*

> follow ed1conf on twitter for ed advice

I just read documentation for this. Sorry for being old.

[Eli the Bearded]

In comp.editors, Eric Pozharski <why...@pozharski.name> replied to me:

>> follow ed1conf on twitter for ed advice
> I just read documentation for this. Sorry for being old.

No need to apolegize. @ed1conf seems to exist to offer ed versions of
how to do it in reply to people posting vim tips. I started following
that account many years ago, when I was using edbrowse for reading
twitter. It's not funny enough to join twitter for, but fun if you are
there already.

(I stopped and had about five years of no twitter and am back this
year, no longer using edbrowse.)

Elijah
------
liked really tall xterms when reading twitter in edbrowse