<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/22/2013 09:13 AM, Charles Shapiro
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADT30qVAiTS_UrSCW9CA8bwKNPmzt8giUTn3_sVOJA9uQEtb=Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Emacs. No one should be without an editor which includes in
the standard distribution a Towers of Hanoi simulation, an
adventure game, and an ELIZA simulation. <br>
<br>
</div>
That said, vi(1) is an Essential Life Skill, and I can get around
in it well enough not to embarrass myself.</blockquote>
<br>
I swore I wouldn't jump in on this thread... oh, well.<br>
<br>
Agreed.<br>
<br>
I use both emacs and vi, though my preference is emacs. I don't use
the LISP functionality anywhere near as much as Dave does, and when
I need complex things done in LISP in Emacs, it's quicker for me to
ask him and move on to the next thing than to try to figure it all
out.<br>
<br>
Personally, had I the time to do so, I'd create an Emacs like editor
where the script component is modular. Imagine LISP, Python and
JavaScript all being "first-class" in the editor macro world, even
being able to call each other's routines and so forth. I'd probably
be a lot happier with either Python or JS there, compared to LISP.<br>
<br>
But, emacs is nice and 90% of what I need to do with it has
keybindings by default or I have bound myself. :-)<br>
<br>
— Mike<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<table border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> <br>
</td>
<td> Michael B. Trausch<br>
<br>
President, <strong>Naunet Corporation</strong><br>
☎ (678) 287-0693 x130 or (855) NAUNET-1 x130<br>
FAX: (678) 783-7843<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>