[ILUG] colored vim...

[Mel]

On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Niall  O Broin wrote:

> kevin lyda said, in a piece of blatant flame-bait which I can't ignore
> 
> > vim-enhanced rpm.  add this line:
> > 
> > syntax on
> > 
> > you should be a trained and experienced vi user to do this since vi is a
> > difficult and hard to use editor.  obviously elisp is much more
> > simplistic to learn for the new user.
> 
> [X]Emacs as shipped with RedHat, and indeed probably any current Emacs built
> with defaults, supports syntax highlighting of Perl, among many others, right
> out of the box. And if I decide that I don't like how vim handles Perl, can I
> fix it other than by recompiling the editor ? Does it have a reasonable
> extension language ? (Lisp's reasonableness (is not (up for (discussion))))
> 
> OK, maybe the average person finds fixing his Emacs' behaviour by writing elisp
> a little difficult. The average person doesn't re-write his kernel every day, but
> he can if he wants - isn't that the whole point ?
> 

(this could get unhealthy)

<dons flame proof suit> 

Emacs was the editor I started with because it was simplier at the start.
And it is easier for beginners to learn! My first vi experience was
extreme frustration because I couldn't figure out how to quit, let alone
use it. But the basics of vi can be summerised in a page and with a bit of
practise, can be faster to use than emacs and has far less hand mangling
keystokes. I use VI now because a) it's faster for me to use and b) it
doesn't take 10 seconds to load. Neither editor has configurability as a
selling point but I think learning a whole language to configure my editor
is a bit extreme. Syntax highlighting pisses me off so it's not a selling
point for any editor IMO

but hey

we're all deaf from the Vi Vs Emacs flame wars over the years. Virtually
every unix newsgroup there is has a vi vs emacs discussion at some stage.
I don't think we need to start another one here.

	Mel