Re: Does anyone really use emacs in terminal?

[Jai Dayal]

The sheer ignorance with how Vim works and what you can do with it is
astounding! It's as if all of you are stuck in the 90's with Vim
technology. Amazing that such a (undeserving-ly) pedantic group could be so
wrong about such trivial issues! Who can even trust your emacs advice?
Certainly, it's a small group of dilettantes here, each feeding off of each
other.




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon <
pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:

> Hongxu Chen <leftcopy.chx@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
> >
> >> Am 12.05.2013 um 00:32 schrieb Jai Dayal:
> >>
> >>> so if
> >>> you're not willing to do a little extra work and expect me to prove the
> >>> most basic trivial things, I'm going to ask you to put something on the
> >>> line, i.e., when I show you Vim's calculus plugins, you never post on
> this
> >>> mailing list again.  deal?
> >>
> >> Vi has an interface to shell level: :!. This way you can use expr,
> >> bc, or dc to calculate something for vi – or use a GNU Emacs script
> >> for something less comprehensible…
> > However this is inconvenient since Vim just forked a new shell
> > process. Now and then I forget whether the shell's parent process is Vim.
>
> He reason why it's inconvenient, is because once you fork a child
> process, it cannot modify the data structure in the parent process
> anymore.  So ok, you can perhaps calculate, or do calculus (seems
> somebody doesn't know the difference), but you cannot have those process
> modify the data in the vim buffers, or in vim memory.
>
> Sure, perhaps you can also have a command or a script in vim to load
> some file modified by those child processes, but that's the point:
> there's no calculus program implemented in vim, like there are
> implemented in emacs.  Or spreadsheets, or web browsers, or email
> readers, or games, etc.
>
>
> >> A bit different is :!emacs -nw <RET> – now you are in GNU Emacs, in
> terminal, as
> >> the subject announces, and can forget that you were in vi before and
> now are not
> >> that limited. You can even files on some remote host! No plugin
> necessary.
>
> Still not in vim.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
> A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
> You can take the lisper out of the lisp job, but you can't take the lisp
> out
> of the lisper (; -- antifuchs
>