 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> It's still too little to bother, I guess. You talk like as if
>> pressing space and being presented with a graphical menu that works
>> like any other graphical menu you ever saw is the end of the world.
>
> It doesn't. The menu disappears seemingly randomly if you stray too far
> from it, the menu order is reversed if you open it too near the bottom
> of the window, the menu gets clipped by the edge of the window rather
> than being display on top of it, it doesn't respect the user setting for
> sub-menu open delay, it doesn't reopen at the new point if you press
> space again. It's all the little features that OS designers spend so
> much time over to make life easier for everyone, and then some developer
> comes along and says "nah, we're just going to use our own menu system".
Would you care to complain about that to web developers of javascript
menus too?
Let's face it: the future means our platform of choice will be nothing
but a receiver for foreign programming running on custom cross-platform
engines, be it web, XUL, XAML, Java, .NET, Windows apps via Wine on
Linux/Mac etc.
Blender is not at all like any Gnome app on Linux either. And today's
Linux noobs just prefer to be underpowered with notepad-on-crack gedit
than to be superman with vim or emacs. It sucks seeing great tech
misused/misunderstood...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:19:27 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> And today's
> Linux noobs just prefer to be underpowered with notepad-on-crack gedit
> than to be superman with vim or emacs.
Well, hold on a sec - I actually use both gedit and vim; I use gedit
sometimes because I just need to do a quick edit and it flies off my
fingers first, other times I use vim because I prefer its search-and-
replace facilities.
I don't really think it's fair to say that only noobs use gedit or kate
(or whatever the standard KDE editor is, GNOME user that I am) and
superhuman beings use vim or emacs.
People use the tools they're most comfortable with, and sometimes more
than one.
Hell, at times, I use awk for editing. If I knew sed better, I'd
probably use that, too. People doing change-on-the-fly editing using
pipes might say that it's noobs who use crutches like vim or emacs.
Remember that we all had to start somewhere, and those of us who've been
in the biz for 15 years or more (which I think is you and me both) tend
to forget that the landscape has changed in that time. Our way may be
better for us, but that doesn't necessarily make it better for everyone.
I also suspect that you - like me - type at a phenomenal rate. I've
clocked myself at up to 120 WPM when I'm really in a good groove. I
can't move a mouse that fast, so I tend to not even use menus in GNOME (I
tend to use ALT+F2 and type the program name in because it's faster for
me). That doesn't mean that for my stepson - who also types rather
quickly at 21 - is a lesser computer user because he uses the mouse more
than I do. He's just got a different workflow for the things he does.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:19:27 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> And today's
>> Linux noobs just prefer to be underpowered with notepad-on-crack gedit
>> than to be superman with vim or emacs.
>
> I don't really think it's fair to say that only noobs use gedit or kate
> (or whatever the standard KDE editor is, GNOME user that I am) and
> superhuman beings use vim or emacs.
>
> People use the tools they're most comfortable with, and sometimes more
> than one.
Sure, feeling comfortable with a beautiful, more familiar face is a nice
thing to get. Even if underpowered, like by choosing gedit vs vim/emacs. :)
Not all editing tasks would benefit from vim/emacs -- like short, plain
typing with little editing other than backspace -- but those that do get
a serious boost from a proper tool.
> Hell, at times, I use awk for editing. If I knew sed better, I'd
> probably use that, too.
Like Perl, they're excellent batch text editing tools.
> People doing change-on-the-fly editing using
> pipes might say that it's noobs who use crutches like vim or emacs.
Batch editing with pipes and sed has no place in today's fast-paced
interactive programming. I don't think Bill Joy or Richard Stallman
would go back to ed or teco after building their tools on them. :)
> Remember that we all had to start somewhere, and those of us who've been
> in the biz for 15 years or more (which I think is you and me both) tend
> to forget that the landscape has changed in that time.
I think I've been keeping up with new technological advances just fine.
And yet I don't see any text editing tool marvels as those 2, even in
high end modernese IDEs.
> Our way may be
> better for us, but that doesn't necessarily make it better for everyone.
I don't think so. The day I can select and copy one long SQL select
query with a mouse just as easily as y} or go back after a search to the
exact point I was 700 lines above with Ctrl+o is the day I'll eat my
underwear. :)
> I also suspect that you - like me - type at a phenomenal rate.
Not at all. Thank God for superior editing tools. :)
> can't move a mouse that fast, so I tend to not even use menus in GNOME (I
> tend to use ALT+F2 and type the program name in because it's faster for
> me).
I control my Linux box from the always open gnome-terminal. My regular
programs are always in bash_history, so it's just a matter of Ctrl-R'ing
for them. :)
> That doesn't mean that for my stepson - who also types rather
> quickly at 21 - is a lesser computer user because he uses the mouse more
> than I do. He's just got a different workflow for the things he does.
I think he's losing a lot. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Batch editing with pipes and sed has no place in today's fast-paced
> interactive programming.
Heh heh heh.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> One feature I actually *want* and that no known editor seems to have is
> the ability to do stuff to tabular data easily. Like, if you suddenly
> decide that you need to append the same piece of text to all 10 lines.
> Or you have a grid of numbers, and you want to add another column in the
> middle.
Vim can do that.
POV-Ray for Windows built-in editor can do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> Or its vim equivalent for those afraid of the control key ;-)
>
> 2G //line 2
> yy //yank (copy) the line
> 2j //down two lines
> $ //end of line
> qa //start macro 'a'
> p //paste
> j //next line
> q //end macro
> 9@a //run macro 'a' 9 times
>
Or using the block selection:
2G //line 2
y$ //yank to end of line
2j //down two lines
$ //end of line
<C-q> //enter visual mode blockwise
9j //down nine lines
A //visual-block append
<C-r>" //paste from register "
Esc //quit visual mode (this is when the change will affect all lines)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Really, I wish MS would ban software that doesn't at least use the
> standard font, menus, toolbars, dialogs etc.
Like Office?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The really Fun Stuff is things like ported Linux programs that assume
> that your shell is named /bin/sh and so on. (The Emacs FAQ says that if
> you try to open a shell using Emacs on Windows, it bombs for this very
> reason.) Really, Windows is very, *very* different to Unix, and just
> recompiling the source code is insufficient to fix that.
Vim sometimes runs whatever is in $SHELL and expects it to understand Bourne
shell syntax. My interactive shell has quite different syntax... so it
bombs.
Even in the Vim mailing list that was compared to "running $EDITOR and
expecting it to understand Emacs keystrokes".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Batch editing with pipes and sed has no place in today's fast-paced
>> interactive programming.
>
> Heh heh heh.
Is that a sed programmer laugh? :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Batch editing with pipes and sed has no place in today's fast-paced
> interactive programming. I don't think Bill Joy or Richard Stallman
> would go back to ed or teco after building their tools on them. :)
Last year I wanted to add something to a hundred files and I seriously used
a script that sent commands to ed.
Not because I was used to it; I learned ed for that. Although I already knew
vim, and many commands are similar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
