From: Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@...>
Date: 2005-04-30T01:38:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Emacs vs. VI vs. IDE

On 4/28/05, tsuraan <tsuraan@xyons.net> wrote:
> > One feature i find vi/nvi/vim/whatever is lacking is the ability to
> > have an interactive shell inside a buffer, i can be in
> > one xemacs session, and C-X2-C-Xo m-x shell and i have a command
> > prompt sitting right there, which i can even copy and paste from. I've
> > never found a way to do this in vi, and i find it much more productive
> > to be able to do everything from one terminal than constantly
> > switching backwards and forwards between processes. Just my $0.02 :)
> 
> That's definitely a weak point of vim.  There's a python script that
> can put a shell in a vim buffer, but it's very unstable and nearly
> useless.  I've heard that the next version will have support for that,
> but who knows...  I mostly just code with multiple consoles and gpm, so
> switching to a shell is just alt-f2 or whatever.  It's still not nearly
> as nice as emacs's integrated stuff though.

Perhaps you mean something different, but wouldn't

!bash

work just fine in vim?

Although, I just have one gvim window open all the time and one
terminal running screen.  Works for me.