That made me giggle,

i will shut up now - and I did use emacs in the beggining.

ryan

"J.D. Forinash" wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:27:16PM -0400, Steven Edwards wrote:
> > Sorry, I didnt mean to start a flame war, just because Emacs sucks. =P
>
> Is this where I fall on the ground laughing?
>
> Typing the phrase 'Emacs sucks' _is_ intentionally starting a flame war.
> But hey, you're having your fun, what do you care what the rest of the net
> thinks?
>
> Let's just go ahead and do the whole war real quick and get it over with:
>
> You say that. The emacs camp responds with "When you write a nameserver
> in your editor, come talk." The vi camp will here respond with something
> about "vi's a pretty good editor. emacs is a shell." The emacs camp now
> responds with a disparaging comment on the lineage of the guy who wrote vi
> in the first place and notes that real editors do not have "beep mode." The
> vi contingent invokes Godwin's Law[0] , claiming the emacs folks are all
> editor-nazis and that real editors do not require the use of multiple
> bucky-keys.
>
> Then the discussion devolves. Arguments are had about the forty-eleven
> versions of vi compared to the one version of emacs, both sides
> considering their way to be the better one. Most people at this point
> stick feet in their mouths from not having actually ever used the
> other editor, or in a very few cases, not having done so in the last
> decade. A splinter csh/ksh/bash/zsh/tcsh/ash/sh/you-use-WHAT? war
> splits off. Many people stick their foot in their mouths not having
> actually really _used_ the editor they're touting. Insert discussion
> on regexps here.
>
> It's right about this time the guy using notepad on Windown jumps in.
> Both sides demolish him and drive on.
>
> In a stunning act of clarity (or at least clarity for this point in
> the, uh, er, "debate") , an emacs aficionado pipes up noting that emacs
> includes lisp for writing macros. This is utterly drowned out by the
> rest of the argument, who have largely devolved into claiming other
> people have sexual relations with aquatic waterfowl and a side
> discussion regarding the status of pregnant chads. Oops, wrong argument.
> One lone vi person is actually reading this morass instead of just
> spewing mayhem and vitriol, and notes that some implementations of vi
> include perl. Various terms such as "syntax highlighting" are bandied
> about, half of which nobody really knows what they mean but by god,
> their editor has it.
>
> The group moderator comes in at this point and moderates the list. Trolls
> of all sorts go home whining that they were having a perfectly reasonable
> conversation and that bastard moderator ousted them for no good reason.
>
> Life goes on, the vi people use vi, the emacs people use emacs, the
> notepad people... well, let's not go there. Moral of the story: If you
> don't like someone else's [insert object here], shut the hell up!
>
> Now that we're done with the emacs/vi flamewar, shall I go ahead and
> get the bsd/linux one out of the way?
>
> [0] Godwin's Law states that on Usenet, once the name Hitler or the term
> Nazi is invoked, a conversation can have no further meaning. Trouble with
> that is that my own corrolary to that law states that any conversation that
> might eventually cause Godwin's Law to be invoked had no meaning to begin
> with, so it's not like Godwin's gonna stop anything.
>
> -JDF    [_Real_ programmers use 'cat > a.out']
> --
> J.D. Forinash                           ,-.
> Georgia Tech College of Computing CNS  ( <
> 211 CCB; (404)-385-0391                 `-'
> The more you learn, the better your luck gets.