On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was saying

*plonk*

Have fun.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:19:35 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:23:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>> You know what is not intuitive either?  A Boeing user interface.  Yet,
>>> it'll get you farther and faster than your intuitive bicycle. :)
>> 
>> True, but sometimes a bicycle is all you need, you don't need a 747 to
>> take you to the corner market. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, it was a poor analogy because it's not two ways:  once learned the
> basics, vi is excellent as a bike as well!  Just ask any *nix sysadmin.
> :)

Yes indeed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 20-years vi hacker comes in touch with notepad for the first time:
> iWhat the crap is this thing?

Heh. I can't tell you the number of .signature files and mail messages I've 
gotten over the years that end with :wq

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's because I have a different perspective.  Quite frankly if you're 
> going to continue to insult and presume to tell me what I mean when I 
> write, then I shall just plonk you into my twit filter and be done with 
> you.

  You are not going to see this (unless someone quotes me), but I'm going
to write it anyways:

  I wrote that vi is harder to approach than other more "regular" text
editors because it doesn't work like those other editors. With other text
editors you start the program and just start editing. In other words, you
eg. press the 'a' key, and the letter 'a' appears at the cursor position.
You press the down cursor key, and the caret goes to the next line, and
so on.

  I think I expressed that, but you still chose to deliberately nitpick
about what "start editing the file right away" means. I think it was pretty
clear from what I wrote and from the context that I meant that you don't
have to press any "commands" or anything to start editing the file. You
just edit it right away. I was contrasting vi with basically any other
text editor. I was expressing why I find vi so hard to approach.

  This is not a question of persective. This a question of whether you
understood what I wrote or not.

  Then you acted all so mighty and deeply insulted when I dared to hint
that you had deliberately started nitpicking on terminology, rather than
understanding what I wrote.

  So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
alternative? The only other alternative was that you did not understand
what I wrote. I can't believe you would be so stupid as to not to understand
such a simple thing, which is why I chose to believe that you were just
deliberately nitpicking.

  But since you insist in that you were not doing it deliberately, then
fine by me. It means you are stupid. And arrogant as well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
>> thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
>> then save and quit. That's just how vi works.
> 
>   Then you must be using a different version of vi than I do.

No. You start vi with a file, edit it and insert text, and then save it.

It's just that "typing letters" isn't how you insert them, any more than 
using H J K and L are how you move around inside an emacs session.

>   I start vi with eg. a text file, try to start editing it and... weird
> things happen. Nothing happens, it beeps or does weird things.

Right. You need to go into "insert text" mode. You can configure your vi to 
start that way, but most people don't, since most people don't start editing 
by having the first thing they do to be inserting text.  (I.e., most times 
you start vi, you already have the file you're changing.)

Maybe it's because I use vi a lot, so when someone says "you can't start 
with a file, move the cursor, edit text, and then save the file", I'm not 
assuming they meant to add "without having to learn what keystrokes do 
that."  It's not like you can move the cursor, edit text, and save the file 
in emacs without either using a version with menus or learning that C-n is 
down and C-p is up and so on.

Given that there *are* editors where you can't open a file when you start 
the editor, or that you can't move around arbitrarily in the file (because 
it's syntax-directed editing or something), I thought maybe you meant 
something like that.

>   I think I explained that in parentheses in my post.

vi does everything you described. It just doesn't use the "usual" keys to do 
it. Later versions do indeed let you use the arrow keys, and prompt you to 
save the file when you close the window, and even have standard menus on top 
and such.  The original VT100 version doesn't, of course.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:42:28 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  I can't believe you would be so stupid as to not to
> understand such a simple thing, which is why I chose to believe that you
> were just deliberately nitpicking.

You miss a third possibility:  That I genuinely believed what I said.  
The reason I got pissed off is because in your world, either people agree 
with you, they deliberately misinterpret what you say in order to 
'nitpick', or they're stupid.

There are other alternatives to those three options.  And it's time you 
learned that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> editors you start the program and just start editing. In other words, you
> eg. press the 'a' key, and the letter 'a' appears at the cursor position.

People who use vi call that "inserting text", not "just start editing". 
That's the confusion.

> You press the down cursor key, and the caret goes to the next line, and
> so on.

vi does this.

>   This is not a question of persective. This a question of whether you
> understood what I wrote or not.

You say "vi is not like other editors", then you use terms that mean 
something different in emacs and vi (such as what "just start editing" 
means, or "opening and saving the file"), and then you get upset when people 
who you *just said* think those things mean something different 
misunderstand you.

>   So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
> alternative? 

That you're talking to people with a different perspective of what "just 
editing" means, complaining that they have a different perspective, then 
getting mad because they don't understand what your complaint is when you 
use the same words they do to mean something different?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was saying

> *plonk*

  I wonder what really is the point in killfiling a regular visitor here.

  The only effect which that will achieve is that you will end up seeing
most of my posts anyways (because people tend to quote), and the threading
of discussions will become broken because your news reader will drop posts
inside the thread.

  Of course it's not really a question of not seeing anymore what I write
(assuming you killfiled me for real in the first place, rather than simply
pretending). It's just a way of you being pompous and arrogant, to show
how deeply "offended" you are.

  It's also an easy way of trolling, which is quite successful, I must admit.
Killfiling someone usually means that most if not all of what he writes is
insulting or inflammatory. Nobody kills someone just because he makes one
or two inflammatory posts among thousands. The only reason to do it (or
pretend doing it) is to taunt.

> Have fun.

  Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
> >> thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
> >> then save and quit. That's just how vi works.
> > 
> >   Then you must be using a different version of vi than I do.

> No. You start vi with a file, edit it and insert text, and then save it.

  I repeat: I think I made it pretty clear what I meant when I wrote
"you edit it". No need to nitpick about this anymore.

  If you honestly did not understand it because I expressed it improperly,
then I'll try to express myself more clearly next time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > 20-years vi hacker comes in touch with notepad for the first time:
> > iWhat the crap is this thing?
>
> Heh. I can't tell you the number of .signature files and mail messages I've
> gotten over the years that end with :wq

Like my email messages, "Here's the file, do you think you could printf this out
for me?"  I wish I could say I've only done that once.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message