in reply to Text Editors

I'd expect the majority of the more serious programmers to use either use an emacs flavour, or a vi-clone, and that most of them don't use it as a graphical application.

I use vile, or vi, typically inside an xterm. No fancy mode, just a very basic 'Perl' mode, that detects you are editing Perl code and then does auto-indenting/outdenting. Combining that with an editor-macro that saves the file, and gives it to perl to run makes my programming environment. That, and the bottle of coke.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Text Editors
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 09, 2003 at 04:37 UTC
    I'd expect the majority of the more serious programmers to use either use an emacs flavour, or a vi-clone, and that most of them don't use it as a graphical application.

    Why? How would a graphical application possibly be inferior? All it does is add additional interface options, it doesn't mean you have to only use the mouse.

    I'm curious what you think the advantages of vim, emacs, etc are over graphical editors like Kate (other than bloat features like a newsreader).

[reply]
      I didn't say a graphical application is inferior. I've no doubt Kate is a wonderful editor, with a million times more features than Emacs, which all can be enabled with less keystrokes.

      Except that I've never heard of Kate. Nor do I know anyone that uses Kate. My expectation was purely based on the myriads of serious coders I've met over the years. They use different languages, they work on different projects/jobs. But most of them use either emacs, or vi (or a look-a-like). Rarely something else.

      Abigail

[reply]
        Funny.
        I havn't read enough of your posts to tell if you are kidding or not but for those that have never fired up KDE and poked around Kate is a text editor for KDE.
[reply]

In Section Meditations