Re: [gtk-list] Re: vi bindings, emacs bindings, and all other bindings

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Wed, Jul 08, 1998 at 09:23:53AM -0400, Pat Rogan wrote:
> Let's stick to the editing functionality commonly found in built-in
> shell editors for the first cut (or even a sub set of that
> functionality).

that would be the idea ... if I stop having this flamewar ... I might be
now be motivated enough to stop hacking on the panel and add this to gtk

> >> I don't go for the argument that something is better because it is
> >> newer ... that logic does not hold ...
> 
> I think the logic here is that ed, vi, emacs, these are (were) all
> limited to the bandwidth, cpu, input methods, and user interface
> mentality of the time.  It can be argued that all of these fields of
> computing continue to mature over time.  If this argument is true, then
> newer interfaces ARE by default better -- In some ways, at least.  

the logic does not hod ... vi and emacs are not made just because
the cpu sucked ... their bindings also make it extremely easy for
editing ... once you know the bindings ... vi was done for both  ...
and I wouldn't argue that emacs is cpu/bandwith saving ... but even they
did evolve ... vi clones still have the old bindings .. yet they have
more features then found in other editors (except for emacs which has two
kitchen sinks) ... 

there is nothing inherent in the bindings which makes em good only in
low bandwith/cpu time ... yes vi is fast over slow networks since it
requires few keystrokes to operate ... if this was the original idea or
not I don't care .. what I care about is that it takes few keystrokes 
to operate

> I mean, why is ed a line editor?  Why does vi have a command mode and an
> edit mode?  Why does emacs have mark and point selections, and why does
> xemacs still have some problems adapting that to the mouse?  There are
> archaic design elements in all of these systems due to specific
> limitations in the state of the technology when they were conceived. 

the vi ex mode is something that most editors still lack, and it's usually
used for batch editting such as search and replace ... the thing is .. in
a lot of editors to find someting or do s&r ... you have to touch the mouse

I'm not gonna do any other type of editting in the line mode ... but it's
very usefull for an editor ... but for example not something I'd put
into a gtktext widget

yes there are features that seem archaic ... for example hjkl moves instead
of arrows ... but are they archaic ... or just plain easier to use ...

> That's just the way it is.  It doesn't change the fact that i have 100
> emacs commands memorized by heart, and my coworker has 100 vi commands
> memorized.  And that when we're on UNIX (and even sometimes when we're
> not) we expect to be able to work the way we know how to.

hmm didn't know there were 100 vi commands ... as far as I know there is
only the amount of letter in the alphabet :)

> But you're right, newer is not always better.  We shouldn't just offer
> win/mac key bindings on everything.  But we should discuss and evaluate
> the situation like we're doing and we should look at other mainstream
> (which implyes cross-platform) examples like netscape or framemaker. 
> They meld windows and emacs style bindings together very effectively.  I
> can hit Alt-V, ^y or the second mouse button, and they all paste
> something (although it's not always the same thing -- but that's another
> issue).

this should not be just hardcoded .. but configurable ...

> I would consider emacs/win and vi/win combinations if possible.  That
> eliminates one of the three main choices i mentioned before.  I don't
> know if mixing anything with vi is possible, but we can figure that out
> along the way.
> 
> And hey, how come no one's mentioned WORDSTAR bindings???? (*just
> kidding!*)

why not .. add configurability and you've got it ... the thing is ...
what if someone create some new editor with really really cool bindings
then it should be easy to add to gtk ... not by changing code but from
rc files

> Anyhow, let's stop talking and start coding!

that would help :)

George

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lebl <jirka@5z.com> http://www.5z.com/jirka/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The following implements RSA in perl and is illegal to export from the US:

          #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
          $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
          lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)