LRPD improved

Post #439,389 by Andrew Grygus 6/28/21 2:16:16 AM 6/28/21 2:16:16 AM Reply	LRPD improved LRPD: "ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!!" Improve: "BUT EMACS WILL ENHANCE THEM". My first word processor was MINCE, with Scribble as its print module. "Mince Is Not Complete EMACS". Even from those days, I could not conceive of using a single buffer word processor, but when I preached multi-buffer to the engineers at work (all using WordStar at the time), their response was "Huh? What good would that be?". Live Cut and Fucking Paste, guys! Sheeeesh! Engineers! One good thing about Mince and its successors, all "mark-up language" word procesors, is that when HTML came along (a mark-up language) I was fully prepared, and could soon easily type up html documents as fast as I could type (which is fast). To my shock, I learned many people can not do this at all - because they can't handle abstractions. Without "WYSIWUG" they are totally lost. I had to have first hand exposure to even believe that some people just can't handle abstractions. EVERYTHING about computers is abstractions - one layer of abstractions over layers of abstractions that are abstractions of other layers. "Its Turtles, all the way down".
Post #439,400 by malraux 6/30/21 10:09:36 AM 6/30/21 10:09:36 AM Reply	No argument here. The beauty of Emacs is that everything is a buffer: text, directories, SQL consoles, shells, you name it. And because of that all of the standard things work everywhere: navigation, cut and paste, keyboard macros, etc. It's fun to show a complex multi-buffer keyboard macro (enter each file in this directory, perform some editing magic that's beyond sed or awk, save the file, run a command on the file in a shell, repeat) to someone who's used to something like Visual Studio Code or Sublime. No comparison for certain things. For modern development though VSC is superior for most things: yes, Emacs has most of the whizzo features like context completion, syntax, hiliting, etc. but it's always a just enough harder to setup and just enough jankier to use that sometimes I wish I didn't have 33 years of Emacs muscle memory making it difficult to learn another editor. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #439,403 by crazy 6/30/21 7:50:04 PM 6/30/21 7:50:04 PM Reply	I did the same thing in visual slick when I was making it more like vi Vi has many buffers. One for each letter of the alphabet both upper and lowercase. So then I had to use a visual slick edit on a PC and I found out it only has single buffers. So I coded the macros to mimic how vi handled buffers.
Post #439,409 by malraux 7/1/21 10:14:56 AM 7/1/21 10:14:56 AM Reply	I did something similar with DOS Paradox of all things. Back when I used vi (first year of school) I worked for my dad's radio station over the summer building a song rotation scheduler in Paradox. Database of songs, build a list with certain rules, etc. Paradox had a built-in editor for PAL scripts but it was pretty much garbage... except for one thing: they implemented an on-load hook that would run a PAL script. I implemented a significant subset of vi using that on-load: search, buffers, all kinds of stuff. It was a little slow because I basically had to open up a permanent keystroke input routine and manage whether it was in insert mode or not, but man was it a lot better than just the built-in. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #439,418 by static 7/2/21 4:11:22 AM 7/2/21 4:11:22 AM Reply	I found IntelliJ got so much nicer when I found a vim plugin It's not perfect but it is damn good and knows a lot of the vim extensions (e.g. "zc" for collapsing code blocks). I have a colleague who has a heap of vim plugins and does all his dev in that. We see it from time to time when he demos something in a Zoom meeting. I am in slight awe of what he's made vim do. I dabbled with the start of that some years ago but I found I just prefer IntelliJ with the vim key bindings. Wade.

Welcome to IWETHEY!