Vi or Emacs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Vi or Emacs
Hey guys I'm new in the unix world and would like to know whether /g/ uses Vi or Emacs.
Better use vi / vim! It's simpler and you can work more efficiently than with emacs!
>>51387916
I use vim. If you are going to use only one text editor it should be flexible.
Fuck emacs, was forced to use that shit in college.
Yes.
Might be.
I smell b8 :^)
I use sublime.
Fuck both of these shitty looking editors.
>>51387977
Please turn 360 degrees and walk!
>>51387916
Both, now stop recycling these shitty threads
>>51388066
>>You actually give a shit how a text editor looks
Get a fucking life, anon
I prefer to use GNU nano or Geany.
>>51387916
Why do you have to decide to learn one? You're brain isn't a 10K floppy disk you can only write on once - try both, and lean a bit about both. When you understand the basic idea of the editor, you can assume the direction is which the more complicated stuff will be going in. And anyway, there's no harm in knowing both - just in case.
Emacs+Evil is the only correct answer.
>>51387977
>Emacs
>not the most flexible editor ever
You on meth again, son?
>>51388643
I have not seen many people coming back to the real world after learning vi.
Emacs style hotkeys are easier to understand although harder to reach.
Vi takes more effort to learn as the mentality of monotasking is a bit foreign to most people.
There is no text editor but vim, and neovim is His prophet.
>>51388079
So... Continue walking the same direction?
>>51387916
The occasional survey thread hints towards vim, but emacs is never far off.
I enjoy using Emacs. After some time it becomes very comfortable and easy to extend from within the editor.
I'm sure Vim offers similar features, but I didn't like its control scheme as much.
Use an IDE to develop actual programs
Use MS Excel to prototype things out before you make a program.
You can make so much money doing business logic in excel and nobody does it because muh microsoft.
>>51391342
>>Use MS Excel to prototype things out
>>MS Excel
nice bait
>>51388066
>using an abandoned text editor
might as well eat shit from hands
>>51388983
neovim's windows support is still shit, but I'm planning on switching to it as soon as they fix that. I still think it's a miracle that they managed to get vim working as well as it does in a Windows command prompt to begin with... hopefully neovim can keep it just as good.
>>51388293
>caring about looks means you don't have a life
how hard did mommy drop you on your head as a kid?
>>51392040
If all your program is doing is crunching numbers and potentially producing charts, excel is a great way to get it done, and makes for pretty decent prototypes because it forces you to clearly define your inputs, outputs and intermediate values. Plus, you can see the intermediate values at every step of the way, which is nice. The main thing to remember is that if you're even slightly considering using some VBA then it's time to switch to a real programming language immediately, otherwise you'll end up wasting tons of time on an incredibly non-portable heap of spaghetti code.
>>51387916
nano is the way to go
>>51390945
is joke :^)
>>51390945
hi newfriend
>>51392040
looks like someone never got into college
Notepad + wine. Never look back
>>51387916
Emacs
>>51387916
Gedit. I'm sick of it. Please suggest something similarly light and easy.
I use nano and pluma. Not going to bother learning vi or emacs.
it's to peacefull in here, let's start a flamewar...
>>51394333
This flamewar is too old to bother... most people who used to program using vi/emacs moved to IDEs, and people who used to edit simple files moved to simple notepad-like software.
>>51387916
Yes.
>>51387916
just give both a try, and see which you like the most?
>>51393814
damn *.*
Anything but Nano, which is a text editor for retards.
>>51394275
+1 for the "it just works" solution
>>51387916
I use either, depending on the context.
>>51387916
sam
I use Vi improved, but to be honest, I've never got around to trying Emacs, probably because I am not a pro programmer, but an engineer.
It strikes me as a Stallman-y thing, i.e., nice idea philosophically but impractical unless you've got a lot of time to configure it just right. Is this about right?
I still use nano.......I'm sorry
>>51395816
If you can't be assed to learn Lisp, you shouldn't be using Emacs.
