Re: [chat] Editor anxiety

[Paul Cameron <1paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:40:55PM +1100, Andre Pang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:24:02PM +1100, Adrian van den Dries wrote:
> 
> > See, that's where the whole "vim vs. emacs" argument just falls apart:
> > Learn to script emacs, and you have learnt a fully-featured, high-level,
> > arguably superior[0] programming language.  Learn to script vim OTOH,
> > and you've learnt to script vim.  Whoopie.

As I have maintained for several years, Emacs is mind control. From
its vi mode (what a lovely name) to its choice of key bindings
(no wonder RMS developed CTS), it changes the chemistry of your
mind and your body (for the worse!@).

Besides, emacs users are surprisingly bad at paintball. Not a good sign.

> vim also has bindings for Perl, Python, Ruby, and Tcl.  there's no
> reason why you can't use those.  in fact, lots of people on
> vim-uesrs use the Perl bindings when they need serious speed and
> Vim's scripting language is just too slow.
>
> whether those languages are inferior or superior to LISP is
> something i don't want to go near :).

It's easier to write a LISP interpreter in Perl than it is to
write a Perl interpreter in LISP. Obviously, Perl is more powerful.

Now, to change my mutt bindings to be more like Pine ...

Paul.