Because I've seen it all before, now they're re-doing it all and nothing surprises me.
Yeah, me too. Remember Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart in the 1952 version of "Brokeback Mountain". Now THAT was a classic. Nothing like that crappy remake that came out last year. WHAT was that studio thinking?
Vim has both ! commands and:shell. Neither does what you get in Emacs, which is to run your shell inside a first-class buffer along side your file buffers. With vim the shells are isolated into a special mode. If there's a way to get a true shell in a vim buffer, I'd love to know how.
No, vi(m) adheres to the Unix philosophy of having many small tools that do one thing well, instead of one Swiss-Army-knife that tries to be all things to all people.
Emacs too has many small tools. One such tool is the "inferior process" capability. It not only lets you run an interactive shell inside of Emacs, but also other processes like a debugger, make, find, grep. In the case of make, find and grep, Emacs applies other small tools such as regex to the output, to let you locate grep hits, debug errors, etc. Other small tools include Emacs's syntax modes, like c-mode, lisp-mode, interactive-lisp-mode, etc. If Emacs is a Swiss Army Knife, then its only because it has so many good tools packed inside it. Each of these tools is written in an elegant language called elisp that lets people write their own tools, and many have.
VNC (for X11) and screen (for tty) both let you do everything you describe, and for more that just your editor.
VNC and screen do not do what I describe, although they allow you to approximate it. What XEmacs has is an elegant implementation of the MVC pattern within the editor; VNC and screen do the same thing at a higher level. It gets you similar functionality, but not quite the same. XEmacs, for example, lets you connect a TTY editor to an X instance of the editor; last I checked, screen can't cross-connect to VNC, although an xterm in VNC could cross-connect to screen. VNC and screen have their uses; so does XEmacs's session capability. I prefer one tool for some tasks, the other for other tasks, and I like to have the choice.
Not to turn this into another vi-vs-emacs flamefest, but what the hell...
I can compile, debug, run a shell - you name it, I can do it without having to reach for the mouse.
Ditto for vi.
Can vi(m) run a shell in an editable buffer, or are you just talking about the:shell command? If the former, I'd like to know how to do it - it would be handy to use that when I'm on a system that lacks Emacs. The problem with:shell on vi is that you have to terminate the shell to get back to vi, and that you can't copy buffer contents to paste back to the editor. This is why I prefer to run my sub-shell in a first class edit buffer as with Emacs. (Of course, I can have multiple shells, and I usually have two or three. Don't know how to do that on vi either.)
Here's another killer feature that I'll bet vi(m) doesn't have (you have to use XEmacs for this, I don't know if plain Emacs does it): you can remotely connect to a running copy of XEmacs. Let's say I go home for the day, leaving a session of XEmacs up and running with various shells, debug sessions, and edit buffers. When I get home, I can SSH into my work box, run gnuclient, and connect a new UI to the running copy of XEmacs - all the same buffers, shells, debug sessions, etc. In MVC terminology, it's a new View/Controller connected to the same Model. Very, very handy. You can even do it with the local copy running in X mode, and the remote one in TTY mode (if your connection is too slow to support X). This is great for those projects where you want to work from home in the evenings after taking a short supper break. And, of course, when you get back to work in the morning, the original session is in sync with the remote session.
I've used vi for twenty years, too. I'm sorry to say that it took me five years to get around to learning Emacs. I'll grant you that vi has made great improvements since the olden days, but it still lags way behind Emacs.
As for gvim, if it's as butt-ugly as Emacs, then it's nowhere near Eclipse. Aesthetics is an area where both vi and Emacs are sorely lacking.
Re:Emacs vs Eclipse: A losing battle
on
The Future of Emacs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've used Emacs for fifteen years, and XEmacs almost as long. I have code (ps-print) in the baseline versions of both. I love Emacs because it made me productive like no other editor did. There are two factors in this equation:
First, I can use Emacs without taking my hands from the keyboard, ever. I can compile, debug, run a shell - you name it, I can do it without having to reach for the mouse.
Second, it is customizable in the extreme. Everything from key bindings to highlighting is driven by Elisp and regular expressions. Don't like the way something works? You can quickly and easily change it by rebinding a lisp function; most importantly, you can make these mods on the fly, without having to run a separate compile step, without having to restart the editor.
That said, I'm impressed with Eclipse. It has some amazingly good features in it; I particularly like the way I can highlight any variable, and instantly see its declaration, inheritance chain, implementing class, etc. We have some of those things, sorta-kinda, in Emacs with tags, but they're not as smooth and slick as Eclipse.
Eclipse has some weak points too. It suffers from Visual Studio envy. Its syntax highlighting is inflexible. Everything about Eclipse is too mouse-oriented - I have to reach for the mouse WAAAY too often for my liking. Emacs-ish bindings are available, but I find them more trouble than they're worth. (I forget why at the moment; I tried the Emacs bindings some months ago, and ended up switching back.)
What I'd like to see is an editor that combines the best of Emacs and Eclipse. You'd never have to take your hands from the keyboard. You'd get the attractive UI of Eclipse without the Visual envy. You'd get an editor that makes you more productive and happy than any other.
(Is something like this dream in Emacs's future? I haven't read TFA, but I rather doubt it.)
But modern hard drives have non-operating shock ratings in the hundreds of G's. If hard drives were so fragile that they couldn't be toted around in a backpack, then laptops would be useless.
Ventilation and cooling is what bothers me with these drives. I had a 500GB Lacie drive in which BOTH drives failed within days of each other. I never carried the drive arround except packed in its original cushioned box. I suspect that heat killed those drives. When I replaced the unit with a 1TB model, I was sure never to operate it any longer than necessary - which means just long enough to make a backup. The newer disk also has a fan in it, small but enough to move some cool air through the enclosure. So far the new disk has held up well.
I remember reading the same headlines for XP, W2K, and NT.
You've probably heard it about linux, too. When 2.6 came out, I remember hearing lots of people say things like "That's nice, but I'll wait until about 2.6.10 before it's stable enough to try." And that took a full year, at least according to the timestamps at kernel.org.
Mine was one of those machines on which iTunes 5.0 and 5.0.1 refused to recognize the CD burner (Plextor PX716). I'm happy to report that 6.0 once again recognizes my CD burner; I haven't actually burned a disc yet, but the fact that it sees the burner is promising.
I agree, Walt was much more evil than corporate Disney.
Indeed. The esteemed authority Dr. Hibbert agrees: "Well, only one in two million people has what we call the 'evil gene'. Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it." You just can't argue with the Simpsons.
So I'm just wondering: does this delta-omega have anything to do with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every 200,000 years or so? Please begin rampant conjecture and wild speculation. Extra credit to anyone who can credibly bring Roswell or right-wing conspiracies into the discussion. Fnord.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I've seen it all before, now they're re-doing it all and nothing surprises me.
Yeah, me too. Remember Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart in the 1952 version of "Brokeback Mountain". Now THAT was a classic. Nothing like that crappy remake that came out last year. WHAT was that studio thinking?
...I caught it from my potato chips.
20 MB audio file limit per song
So I'm guessing that means I won't be able to take some extended Iron Butterfly tracks with me then?
And just say "No" to Yes.
snaught.
You don't know exactly how long your cat has left to live, but after watching all this, you get the feeling its days are numbered one way or another.
Well, if your name is Schrodinger... then, yeah. DUUUH!
Imake is the spawn of the devil. I've used it. I've understood it. But I HATED myself in the morning.
Oh yeah, get the government involved, THAT'LL make it better.
Do NOT taunt Happy Fun Santa!
Do you mean the '!' commands?
:shell. Neither does what you get in Emacs, which is to run your shell inside a first-class buffer along side your file buffers. With vim the shells are isolated into a special mode. If there's a way to get a true shell in a vim buffer, I'd love to know how.
Vim has both ! commands and
No, vi(m) adheres to the Unix philosophy of having many small tools that do one thing well, instead of one Swiss-Army-knife that tries to be all things to all people.
Emacs too has many small tools. One such tool is the "inferior process" capability. It not only lets you run an interactive shell inside of Emacs, but also other processes like a debugger, make, find, grep. In the case of make, find and grep, Emacs applies other small tools such as regex to the output, to let you locate grep hits, debug errors, etc. Other small tools include Emacs's syntax modes, like c-mode, lisp-mode, interactive-lisp-mode, etc. If Emacs is a Swiss Army Knife, then its only because it has so many good tools packed inside it. Each of these tools is written in an elegant language called elisp that lets people write their own tools, and many have.
VNC (for X11) and screen (for tty) both let you do everything you describe, and for more that just your editor.
VNC and screen do not do what I describe, although they allow you to approximate it. What XEmacs has is an elegant implementation of the MVC pattern within the editor; VNC and screen do the same thing at a higher level. It gets you similar functionality, but not quite the same. XEmacs, for example, lets you connect a TTY editor to an X instance of the editor; last I checked, screen can't cross-connect to VNC, although an xterm in VNC could cross-connect to screen. VNC and screen have their uses; so does XEmacs's session capability. I prefer one tool for some tasks, the other for other tasks, and I like to have the choice.
Not to turn this into another vi-vs-emacs flamefest, but what the hell...
:shell command? If the former, I'd like to know how to do it - it would be handy to use that when I'm on a system that lacks Emacs. The problem with :shell on vi is that you have to terminate the shell to get back to vi, and that you can't copy buffer contents to paste back to the editor. This is why I prefer to run my sub-shell in a first class edit buffer as with Emacs. (Of course, I can have multiple shells, and I usually have two or three. Don't know how to do that on vi either.)
I can compile, debug, run a shell - you name it, I can do it without having to reach for the mouse.
Ditto for vi.
Can vi(m) run a shell in an editable buffer, or are you just talking about the
Here's another killer feature that I'll bet vi(m) doesn't have (you have to use XEmacs for this, I don't know if plain Emacs does it): you can remotely connect to a running copy of XEmacs. Let's say I go home for the day, leaving a session of XEmacs up and running with various shells, debug sessions, and edit buffers. When I get home, I can SSH into my work box, run gnuclient, and connect a new UI to the running copy of XEmacs - all the same buffers, shells, debug sessions, etc. In MVC terminology, it's a new View/Controller connected to the same Model. Very, very handy. You can even do it with the local copy running in X mode, and the remote one in TTY mode (if your connection is too slow to support X). This is great for those projects where you want to work from home in the evenings after taking a short supper break. And, of course, when you get back to work in the morning, the original session is in sync with the remote session.
I've used vi for twenty years, too. I'm sorry to say that it took me five years to get around to learning Emacs. I'll grant you that vi has made great improvements since the olden days, but it still lags way behind Emacs.
As for gvim, if it's as butt-ugly as Emacs, then it's nowhere near Eclipse. Aesthetics is an area where both vi and Emacs are sorely lacking.
I've used Emacs for fifteen years, and XEmacs almost as long. I have code (ps-print) in the baseline versions of both. I love Emacs because it made me productive like no other editor did. There are two factors in this equation:
First, I can use Emacs without taking my hands from the keyboard, ever. I can compile, debug, run a shell - you name it, I can do it without having to reach for the mouse.
Second, it is customizable in the extreme. Everything from key bindings to highlighting is driven by Elisp and regular expressions. Don't like the way something works? You can quickly and easily change it by rebinding a lisp function; most importantly, you can make these mods on the fly, without having to run a separate compile step, without having to restart the editor.
That said, I'm impressed with Eclipse. It has some amazingly good features in it; I particularly like the way I can highlight any variable, and instantly see its declaration, inheritance chain, implementing class, etc. We have some of those things, sorta-kinda, in Emacs with tags, but they're not as smooth and slick as Eclipse.
Eclipse has some weak points too. It suffers from Visual Studio envy. Its syntax highlighting is inflexible. Everything about Eclipse is too mouse-oriented - I have to reach for the mouse WAAAY too often for my liking. Emacs-ish bindings are available, but I find them more trouble than they're worth. (I forget why at the moment; I tried the Emacs bindings some months ago, and ended up switching back.)
What I'd like to see is an editor that combines the best of Emacs and Eclipse. You'd never have to take your hands from the keyboard. You'd get the attractive UI of Eclipse without the Visual envy. You'd get an editor that makes you more productive and happy than any other.
(Is something like this dream in Emacs's future? I haven't read TFA, but I rather doubt it.)
But modern hard drives have non-operating shock ratings in the hundreds of G's. If hard drives were so fragile that they couldn't be toted around in a backpack, then laptops would be useless.
Ventilation and cooling is what bothers me with these drives. I had a 500GB Lacie drive in which BOTH drives failed within days of each other. I never carried the drive arround except packed in its original cushioned box. I suspect that heat killed those drives. When I replaced the unit with a 1TB model, I was sure never to operate it any longer than necessary - which means just long enough to make a backup. The newer disk also has a fan in it, small but enough to move some cool air through the enclosure. So far the new disk has held up well.
Dude... you just ripped off Scott Adams.
Whatever happened to artists of integrity, artists like Tom Petty who want their record prices kept low so their fans can afford them?
I remember reading the same headlines for XP, W2K, and NT.
You've probably heard it about linux, too. When 2.6 came out, I remember hearing lots of people say things like "That's nice, but I'll wait until about 2.6.10 before it's stable enough to try." And that took a full year, at least according to the timestamps at kernel.org.
He's been watching too much Star Trek.
Mine was one of those machines on which iTunes 5.0 and 5.0.1 refused to recognize the CD burner (Plextor PX716). I'm happy to report that 6.0 once again recognizes my CD burner; I haven't actually burned a disc yet, but the fact that it sees the burner is promising.
The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.
Yeah, but I bet the Nobel Committee only gives them the prize once.
Because catskins are free.
Seen on bumper sticker:
I do NOT suffer from insanity! (I enjoy every minute.)
I agree, Walt was much more evil than corporate Disney.
Indeed. The esteemed authority Dr. Hibbert agrees: "Well, only one in two million people has what we call the 'evil gene'. Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it." You just can't argue with the Simpsons.
The goggles, they do nothing!
Bless you. I was hoping somebody else out there would remember Mrs. Richards.
So I'm just wondering: does this delta-omega have anything to do with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every 200,000 years or so? Please begin rampant conjecture and wild speculation. Extra credit to anyone who can credibly bring Roswell or right-wing conspiracies into the discussion. Fnord.
You mean this.