comp.lang.ruby

Chad Perrin

7/22/2007 5:55:00 AM

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:21:56AM +0900, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <20070722005345.GD66157@demeter.hydra>, Chad Perrin writes:
> >(leaving aside for the moment the ability to write significant chunks of
> >plugin code in other languages -- which I think is present in both, but
> >more obvious and common with Vim)
>
> I think emacs is more customizable for one simple reason: vmlinux.el.
>
> Emacs is an operating system in which someone wrote a popular programmer's
> editor. Vim is an extensible editor.

I already have an OS. I don't need to run another one on top of it.

The way I've heard the same sentiment phrased was "Emacs is a great OS.
Now someone needs to write a good editor for it."

Of course, there is a good editor for Emacs. I think it's called Viper.


>
> (Me, I use nvi. It's not especially extensible, but then, I don't need to
> extend it; it does what I want and stays out of my face.)

I don't actually use extension in Vim, either, really. I guess you could
call the syntax highlighting files for Vim extensions, though -- and I do
use those.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I
just didn't know it would be called Ruby."