×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

Finally (5, Funny)

enec (1922548) | about a year ago | (#42919741)

So finally Emacs gets a text editor! I must say, it's a nice operating system but it's been missing a text editor for quite a while... ;)

Re:Finally (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919889)

The 1980's called and wants its joke back.

Re:Finally (5, Funny)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year ago | (#42919957)

2013 called and emacs users still want a text editor.

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920017)

What's a call? Is that what old people did to communicate before they started using email?

Posted with Microsoft Emacs 98

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920463)

Whats email? Is that what old people used to communicate before they started using Facebook?

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920277)

Agreed.

For a hardcore vi guy, I am kind of OK with Emacsians but just can't stand the sight of people who can't make up their minds or try to appease both the religions.

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920819)

It's hardline antifencists like you who guarantee the continuation of the bloody editor war. Declare your interests. Are you selling nerf guns to both sides? Making samizdat copies of The Cathedral and the Bizarre? The revolution will not have a command mode, comrade.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920551)

All they have to do now is implement 'ed' inside Vim inside Emacs, and we'll have a Software Turducken!

vim should implement emacs (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919749)

they should call it "vagina"

Re:vim should implement emacs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919755)

how about vacuum because vim sucks

Re:vim should implement emacs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919867)

vi? emacs? no normal English speaker knows what these words mean. Do you need to be a cunning linguist to use these programs?

Re:vim should implement emacs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920001)

You Sir, are a master debater!

Re:vim should implement emacs (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#42920069)

vi? emacs? no normal English speaker knows what these words mean. Do you need to be a cunnilinguist to use these programs?

FTFY.
The answer of the question in the correct form above is "Highly probable": after an age, even if still interested in a sexual life, that's about all you can do (and you need to have a certain age to know how to use both vi and emacs).

Now... get off my lawn, kids.

Re:vim should implement emacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920023)

You seem to be mistaking a PEBKAC error for a problem with vim.

Coming up next - Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919761)

Full implementation of Emacs in Vim

Re:Coming up next - Good (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#42919847)

Coming up next: Full implementation of Emacs in Vim

Actually it's already done, Emacs is available from Vim in Emacs

What about viper mode? (3, Interesting)

dennisr (17484) | about a year ago | (#42919777)

Didn't emacs already have this: viper mode? Or was that just straight vi? I for one liked viper mode so I am going to try this new mode out.

Re:What about viper mode? (4, Interesting)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | about a year ago | (#42920635)

Viper mode is good, but it is at times confusing, especially when you confuse it with too many Escapes. Evil has quite a few more features too. Both are good projects, though I think Evil has progressed more.

Um, why? (5, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about a year ago | (#42919803)

If you want to use vim, why wouldn't you just use vim?

'Sup Dog? (5, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#42919869)

I heard you like to edit text, so I put a text editor in your text editor so you can edit text while you edit text.

Re:'Sup Dog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920275)

You still won't be able to pick up chix, that's why emacs really is short for emacs..ulated.

Re:'Sup Dog? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#42920881)

Yo, I heard you like to put text editors in your friends' text editors, when you hear that they like text editors, so they can edit text while they're editing text. Here's [algorithm.com.au] a text editor you can put in the text editor you put in your friends' text editors, so you can put text editors in text editors while putting text editors in your friends' text editors which they can use to edit text while they edit text.

Re:Um, why? (1)

spagthorpe (111133) | about a year ago | (#42919941)

I'm also trying to figure out the point to this.

Re:Um, why? (5, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | about a year ago | (#42920051)

This is the world of open source software, "because we can" is ALWAYS a perfectly acceptable reason :)

Re:Um, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920767)

Hey, if "because we can" is a good enough reason to put a jet engine in a motorcycle, (the Y2K) then it's a more than good enough reason to make the program equivalent of a turducken like this.

Re:Um, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920103)

I'm also trying to figure out the point to this.

Perhaps the point is the person who made it was bored and wanted something to fill his otherwise empty and meaningless life?

Perhaps the creation of a new problem - that is, setting out the goals of the project - allowed the author to avoid addressing the real problem in his life: his lack of meaningful interaction with the humans around him. Thus, the more serious problem of social failure was supplanted with a airy, light, and ultimately unimportant problem.

Further, the new problem was one for which failure had no real consequence: the pointlessness of the project becomes a virtue when you want to avoid consequences for failure. This is in stark contrast to the public humiliation that could come out of a failed attempt at socializing.

Perhaps, in naming his software 'Evil', the author was admitting to himself the existential evil inherent in avoiding the important problems in life: writing the software was a sin of omission, and was itself, therefore, an act of evil.

But you, posting here on Slashdot on a Friday night, might know all of this already, because you are living the same life, and creating the same imaginary problems: the only difference is that, for you, the imaginary problem is figuring out what the author of this software intended.

Re:Um, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920049)

I have been on ...I think two systems in my life that had emacs, but no vi.

The sysadmins were psychotic assholes.

Re:Um, why? (5, Insightful)

spintriae (958955) | about a year ago | (#42920059)

Because vim users would like to take advantage of nice emacs goodies like Slime without changing the way they edit text.

Re:Um, why? (1)

mrprogrammerman (2736973) | about a year ago | (#42920073)

If you want to use vim, why wouldn't you just use vim?

They were tired of all the jokes and decided to add a text editor to their operating system?

Re:Um, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920231)

There already are two major implementations of vi for emacs, this is just a new, improved implementation with support for modern vim features.

Re:Um, why? (3, Informative)

retchdog (1319261) | about a year ago | (#42920079)

someone who always has at least one emacs window open wanted to drop into vim for quick edits without having to save and reopen the file. a throng of under-employed people thought it was cool for various reasons and joined in. same as every other open source project. it is its weakness and strength.

Re:Um, why? (3, Insightful)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about a year ago | (#42920153)

I like Emacs's features and find vim seriously lacking. But Emacs key bindings hurt my hands. I use viper, but it confuses me (or rather, I confuse it when I press escape). Maybe I'll give evil a shot.

Re:Um, why? (2)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#42920339)

If you want to use vim, why wouldn't you just use vim?

That's like asking "why would you install Linux on a toaster oven?" Because it might be possible, and it would be just awesome. Actually, it's probably more like asking "why would you install a toaster oven in my overly-versatile Linux box when the internal temperature already toasts slices of bread perfectly?" Because there are many shades of perfection and if you are to truly understand the zen of emacs you must experience them all.

Re:Um, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920579)

You really need this answered ? Cause your geek card may be in danger.

As we all know, emacs is a great operating system, it only lacks a decent editor. Now someone is implementing just that, and you want to know why ?

Re:Um, why? (3, Informative)

suy (1908306) | about a year ago | (#42920623)

If you want to use vim, why wouldn't you just use vim?

There could be many reasons to that. One might be becase Vim has a limited interface to writing plugins. There are plugins that use the Python interface to create different processes [github.com], or one that uses Vim's libcall() to run a task asynchronously [github.com], but are just nice hacks that work acceptably, but not great.

I've been quite impressed by Shougo's plugins, becase, for example, Unite.vim, loads files from the disk in a background task that doesn't make Vim unresponsive, but is still limited in that it seems Vim can not have some kind of timer that polls the background job to update the UI (even less a fully asynchronous interface). The solution is probably resort to using Vim with the client-server interface, but I don't think is the common case of most Vim users.

On the other hand, lately I've been suffering frequent blocks and even full crashes of Vim when using the clang_complete plugin, because uses Python in some unsafe way.

In short, a new Vim implementation that doesn't suffer from such limitations would be welcome. I doubt that making that implementation on top of Emacs is the right way, but who knows. Ideally it should be native, but Vim's development is a bit slow. I can't find the relevant links now, but I remember a conversation on IRC that pointed out to a patch that a YankAdded (or something like that) autocommand. The patch was simple, and it would make plugins like yankring and yankstack almost trivial, since instead of doing map tricks, they could plug into such autocommand and work comfortably. But the patch is about 18 months old, and still has not been applied. Bram Molenaar's response is that bug fixes have priority over features (which makes all the sense of the world), but gives a bad impression over the scalability of Vim's development. Last time I checked the version control, Bram was the only one committing.

nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handily (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919823)

Console based text editors are idiotic.

A mouse and a proper gui can do much more much faster. You neckbeards should get over your ego and join the modern age.

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919983)

Fuck off, you cornflake-munching dunce. Some of us experts (I won't use your Retarditor-speak here) prefer to avoid RSI.

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920031)

would you like to tickle my penis with your tongue?

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920137)

Not only are you a dimwitted Retarditor, you're a homophobe. Can't say I'm surprised.

Are there any other huge swaths of the population you hate? You're worse than Pol Pot.

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920229)

Muslims. I don't care for Muslims.

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920315)

Like I said, worst than Pol Pot.

Re:nedit over x11 forwarding beats emacs/vim handi (1, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#42920859)

You are aware that Emacs has a GUI?

You are aware that vim also has a GUI?

Now, please tell me what nedit can do that neither Emacs nor vim can do.

Also, please tell me what you do if you remote login to another computer over a connection which is too slow to run a GUI and want to edit a file there.

Time to recurse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919825)

Somebody should really write an "Emacs mode" VIMplugin so that we could run Emacs inside VIM inside Emacs inside ...

Re:Time to recurse (2)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | about a year ago | (#42920681)

Try this for your amusement:

Launch emacs.

Step 1: M-x term ; screen vim
Step 2: in vim type :!emacs
Step 3: return to step 1

You can stack as many sessions as you want. Why you would want to do that is of course completely your affair.

waiting for ed (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919859)

If vim and emacs merged into one application, would the resulting application donate Richard Stallman to Uganda?

Re:waiting for ed (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about a year ago | (#42920019)

If vim and emacs merged into one application, would the resulting application donate Richard Stallman to Uganda?

No, more likely North Korea

Re:waiting for ed (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#42920175)

If vim and emacs merged into one application, would the resulting application donate Richard Stallman to Uganda?

No, more likely North Korea

Because he is the bomb?

--

Did Satan sell Evil to Bill Gates?

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919861)

I used to use Emacs, then I switched to Windows, and finally settled on Kubuntu.

:X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42919893)

Hopefully, there is still the 'feature' of accidentally encrypting your file during exit if your caps lock is on

:wq oh-shit (1)

junkfish (460683) | about a year ago | (#42920061)

Entering Ex mode. Type "visual" to go to Normal mode.
oh shit what's this
E749: empty buffer :w
E32: No file name
:
E749: empty buffer
:
E749: empty buffer
:
E749: empty buffer
:
E749: empty buffer ::W
E492: Not an editor command: :W :QW
E492: Not an editor command: QW :wq
E32: No file name

fuck it, i forgot what I was going to comment anyway

Re::wq oh-shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920467)

I've been using emacs for over 20 years. In vim on Linux I'm always getting in that mode. Never had that problem with Bill Joy's version on the Vax

Memory Demands (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920067)

The new EVIL editor was heard demanding "One MILLION bytes of core," to which GNU/Linux distributors reacted by doubling over with laughter.

After a hurried conference with its aides, the EVIL editor revised its demands to "One BILLION bytes of core".

Funny Story... (4, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#42920083)

Back in the 90's one of the contracting gigs I took was security auditing code for Data General, for their B2 unix certification. Our team was mostly doing the C standard library but once we finished that we started working on the utilities. One of my co-workers got vi (I got awk and telnetd, but that's another funny story entirely.) He wasn't a fan of vi when he started but he turned into a vi guru and fanatic as he started going through the code. At one point I mentioned that Emacs had a vi emulation, and he started going over it to see how it differed from real vi. I seem to recall that he thought it was a pretty good emulation overall, but he lamented the lack of a couple of fairly esoteric features of vi. We also found a comment in there from the 70's about how the author didn't really like how he was handling something to do with the terminal handling, with a note to fix it one of these days.

I never liked that newfangled vim. It's far too... colorful. I usually swap it out for nvi, which is much more vi-like. Distributions (like Redhat) that install pico as the default editor make me punch someone. Maybe the guy who thought pico should be considered in any way an acceptable UNIX editor. I always have to swear, abort back to the command line, and export VISUAL=vi.

Re:Funny Story... (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#42920129)

I guess you had to be there, eh?

Re:Funny Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920201)

I guess you had to be there, eh?

A hush washes over the room, like the deranged mist that spews from a border collie in heat.

A door in the back opens, and a small, angry looking man explodes through it. He walks towards 93 at an aggressive pace, but comes to a complete stop 10 feet away.

"YOU SIR ARE AN ASS!", he screams. He then turns, and leaves.

Re: Funny Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920253)

You're a backer of wl2, I take it. Nice!

Re:Funny Story... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#42920705)

Eh, this is oldschool unix stuff. Go back to the front page for more worthless stories on things you're more comfortable with, like copyright, drones, and other day-to-day bullshit politics. We' re talking about vi here, kindly fuck off.

Re:Funny Story... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920185)

Why were you auditing code that besides telnetd at the time, didn't ever run as setuid? Did you ever find that 0day in 'cal'?

$1000 for a hammer, $200 dollars for a toilet seat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920241)

Where do you think your tax dollars go? To stimulate the economy of course!

Re:Funny Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920445)

As a matter of fact, during one of my security audits we discovered a previous admin left a root escalation option hidden in the systems date command.

After that experience, I would suspect cal just as much.

Re:Funny Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920265)

the busybox version of vi is the only editor that makes me want to punch someone.

Re:Funny Story... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year ago | (#42920335)

I have to wonder how anyone would actually run into these editors, like pico? I've rarely 'accidentally' run an editor I didn't want to run. Emacs is not lurking in the background somewhere when I type 'vi(m)' to edit files.

Re:Funny Story... (1)

dissy (172727) | about a year ago | (#42920473)

The command 'visudo' will launch whatever editor is defined in an environment variable, and if that is not set it will traverse the /etc/defaults/ tree.

On certain distros a brand new install will have those set to pico or nano.
After having configured the defaults on a previous system many years prior, one tends to forget about that "feature" even existing.

Not coincidentally, using visudo is more likely immediately after a new installation as well, and where I most often first run into it.

Re:Funny Story... (1)

chromas (1085949) | about a year ago | (#42920487)

Some systems have a symlink to editor and/or an environment variable for other programs to check if they feel the need to start a 'default' editor.

Re:Funny Story... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#42920795)

I have to wonder how anyone would actually run into these editors, like pico?

Raspberry Pi.

The default image contains pico but not vi. Installing vi requires installing quite a few dependencies and on that slow machine takes time. End result is that it's actually simply easier to run pico.

Or simply use a linux image with a decent text editor :-)

Re:Funny Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920647)

Setting pico as default is a GOOD thing: it's easier to use for the noobs.
Learning vi/vim is an investment ... we don't want to scare peaple away straight away by giving them an editor with no onscreen clues ?

Well, that's cool and all, but.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#42920195)

It's still emacs.

Re:Well, that's cool and all, but.... (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#42920403)

Emacs and its Lisp extensions are great, unbelievable it was made more than 30 years ago with no successful "competitor" (not only editors, but almost everything else: something with that level of customization thanks to a clever "scripting" (lisp) integration). To realize how Emacs is good, just look at Gimp: they tried to implement a similar Lisp based architecture (script-fu) and is, unlike Emacs, all but practical and convenient (eg macros like "C-x (" in Emacs?). I use Vim to do quick changes, but long edits or complex changes are always made through Emacs.

So, is this the end of the vi/emacs flamewar? (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year ago | (#42920361)

...or is it more like mixing Star Wars and Star Trek?

Re:So, is this the end of the vi/emacs flamewar? (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#42920503)

Emacs and Vi are different - actually everything that can be done in Vi can be done (or implemented via the creation of a lisp function) in Emacs. The thing is, Vi loads quickly, and its search/replace, line number based commands and (relatively new) syntax highlighting makes it the preferred choice while working in a terminal for rather quick and small changes. While Emacs is more of an application that remains opened from start to end of a user session, loaded with a number of files, directories, lisp functions (thanks to .emacs), libraries (site-lisp etc...), and even sql / shell sessions.

Re:So, is this the end of the vi/emacs flamewar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42920507)

Now that J. J. Abrams is associated with Star Wars it's a definite possibility!

Darn. (1)

drolli (522659) | about a year ago | (#42920461)

That was the feature i was waiting for since 1994, and due to which i switched away from emacs 5 years ago.

Yo dog.... (1)

mpfife (655916) | about a year ago | (#42920533)

I heard you liked an editor in your editor, so we put and editor in your editor so you can edit while you edit!

While funny for slashdot - it's basically like watching people arrange deckchairs on the Titanic. These are tools - tools to get your job done. Use the best tool and stop circle-j-ing about this over that/etc. I use both whenever it suits me; but don't do any serious development in either anymore. There's so, so, so much better tools out there than these tired old things.

VIM can be run in emacs without the extension (1)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | about a year ago | (#42920613)

By the way, not to belittle the project in any way, but you can already run vim inside of EMACS by the following:

M - x (return) term (choose shell) ; vim

You get the whole vim in an emacs term buffer. What you don't get is any real integration (you are stuck in vim, but your mouse can get you to another buffer if you need to). Evil is much better in that you are still in emacs while you use vim shortcuts and commands and you can get into emacs easier for slime and the rest.

You can even launch screen inside a term buffer - very handy for a quick ssh to a development machine (screen -R). You can even launch emacs on the other machine inside the term buffer for recursive madness.

EMACS is just awesome. And now thanks to Evil it also has an awesome editor.

can someone explain this holy war? (1)

equex (747231) | about a year ago | (#42920619)

nothing is like a good holy war, and thats pretty much why i've been following the vi/emacs threads for years without actually trying any of them for more than 2 seconds. the doctors said i stabbed myself with my bare hands in both cases. so what is the difference between these editors anyway ? except for having weird key combos?

Re:can someone explain this holy war? (1)

ImdatS (958642) | about a year ago | (#42920673)

You, Sir, are starting a new Holy War! It might be the War to End All Wars, but, nevertheless, it is a new Holy War...

converted an EDT fan (back in the day ...) (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#42920783)

Running VMS 3.7 or 3.8, IIIRC. He really liked the vt200 keypad integration of EDT. Was a bit envious of the multiple buffers we had though, and then I wrote an elisp program to convert assembly language listing back to source so we could produce product-specific documentation for the regulators; that was too much. He switched to emacs+edt mode.

My favorite emacs story though is still the guy I worked with who used it as his login shell on BSD.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...