On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 09:46 -0600, Tim Chase wrote: > > For a proof, let's see what Google has to say about this: > > "Windows text editor". Vim is on page 3, near the turning > > point where nobody is talking about text-editor anymore and > > more about text-editor reviews. Even worse is Emacs, on page > > 6, after many other popular text-editors have been mentioned > > several times. > > That's a pretty malformed "proof": > > http://www.google.com/search?q=people%20you%20should%20listen%20to%20regarding%20choice%20of%20text-editor > > You don't appear anywhere in the top *10* pages...QED ;-)
That's a pretty malformed dis-proof. > However, if you want to play that game, vim.org appears on page #1 of > > http://www.google.com/search?q=best+text+editor Not a valid proof. When people queried for "best text editor", they'll be looking for reviews instead of official site of text editor. So the placement of vim.org in the first page for "best text editor" is out of context (although I do agree that vim is one of the best editor, if not the best, in terms of power and speed). > Use what editor works for you -- but if evolution in the > language's features makes difficulties for you but not for users > of other editors, it's your editor that's the problem, not the > language. Personally, I don't think having two parens is adding much difficulties, but I symphatize those who think it is. Actually I wanna say: It's vi(m)'s fault for being too powerful making its avid users doesn't care about users of other editors. Not many text editors are nearly as powerful as vi(m) (or emacs), although most (all?) are much easier to use for day-to-day editing. but I don't want to start a war here. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
