From: g@nowhere.invalid   
      
   Janis Papanagnou  wrote:   
   > On 08.03.2024 00:54, Anthony Howe wrote:   
   >> On 2024-03-07 09:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >>> As I understand it nvi is just a reimplementation of classical vi.   
   >>> I assume your Linux also supports vim. Is there a reason why you   
   >>> prefer to use nvi?   
   >>   
   >> * Nvi historically accurate for the most part. [...]   
   >>   
   >> * Nvi's extensions do not conflict with historical/POSIX behaviour.  In   
   >> particular undo/redo in vim is a pet peeve of mine, because it never   
   >> works the way I expect it to work and I have lots of muscle memory WRT   
   >> vi.  Keith's solution was more elegant IMO.   
   >   
   > Hmm.., okay.   
   >   
   > Myself I had always been annoyed by Vi's single undo toggling. Vim's   
   > multiple undo (and redo) is exactly what I want.   
   >   
   > I've read somewhere that Vim even allows to navigate undo trees, but   
   > that's something I never looked into.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> * vi macros.  At the time of the POSIX standards, people had macros they   
   >> relied on that needed to be portable.  I had collected for MKS's testing   
   >> some interesting macro sets: vi solving a maze; Turing test; Towers Of   
   >> Hanoi, maybe others.  vim broke these macros.   
   >   
   > Oh, interesting and good to know. Have you any details what exactly   
   > was the problem?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> * Don't need plugins or syntax highlighting or what ever else vim adds   
   >> to the bloat.  I worked without those features for years.  For that   
   >> there are plenty of other editors to try that are not Vim (or Emacs).   
   >   
   > I worked also colorless in the past for a long time; my stance was   
   > that programs and data should be well structured and formatted and   
   > legibly written so that syntax colors are not really necessary. I   
   > certainly changed my habit and value that feature (and especially   
   > in the implemented form using external syntax specification files   
   > instead of builtin syntaxes, which contributes to non-bloat, IMO).   
   >   
   > I also don't use Vim plugins.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> * Vi already had lots of options; Vim seemed to go off the deep end.   
   >> Too many knobs means you're forever tweaking more than getting the job   
   >> done.   
   >   
   > Okay, but you don't have to use them. I certainly use only a dozen   
   > of all the options I can set. But whenever I missed a feature I   
   > look into the docs and find a new one that's there to support me.   
   > The huge list of options can certainly be frightening, I'm sure.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> * Pretty sure Nvi is smaller (depending on build options) than a full   
   >> Vim install.  Yes I still care about size, despite lots of memory and   
   >> disk with modern machines.   
   >   
   > Yes, fair enough. That's certainly yet more an argument if you're   
   > comparing Vi with Emacs whose executable was ever in the 8-10 MB   
   > range where Vi, Vi-clones, and Vi-improvements were much smaller.   
   >   
   > Thanks for the insights and your preferences explained.   
   >   
   > Janis   
      
   Personally, as I use vim mostly for programming, the best feature is the   
   ability to compile from inside vim and then automatically go to the errors to   
   correct them.   
      
   G   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)