Re: OT OmniWeb [was: Netscape 4.x?]

* Sean Russell ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Thomas Hurst wrote:

> > gvim.  Same with /bin/sh.  Unfortunately most Linux dist's seem to have
> > missed this concept and link half the stuff in /bin with /usr, not to
> > mention fill /usr with as much crap as they can get their hands on :)
> 
> Hmmm.  Never noticed that, but I don't poke around in /bin much.

Well, spot the deliberate mistake of most Linux vendors:

-% file /bin/sh
/bin/sh: symbolic link to bash
-% file /bin/bash
/bin/bash: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped

Vs:

-% file /bin/sh
/bin/sh: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD),
statically linked, stripped

Same with /bin/vi -> /bin/vim; if you use gvim, your core system editor
becomes utterly dependent on X11, even if you don't it becomes dependent
on a bunch of libs and ldd.. what happens when your library list gets
nuked and you need to edit it to get shared libs (and hence your
"failsafe" editor and root shell)? :)

Aaaaaaaanyway..

> I disagree.  Once you know it, yes, but when compared to other editors, 
> vi/vim has one of the worst learning curves.  The "modes" is very confusing 
> for new users, and takes a while to get used to.

I found modes very easy to get used to once I got past the initial
shock, but I guess my mind works differently to most people.. I even
understand regex quite well ;)

> Current user interface theory holds that mixed modes is a Bad Thing.

Windows XP and Luna are derived from current user interface theory.
Current user interface theory can, therefore, go take a long walk off a
short cliff ;)

> > Speaking of editors, anyone played with Vim/Ruby?

> Well, I use the syntax mode all the time :-)

It's surprising how good the Ruby syntax mode is compared with, say the
PHP one; PHP has conciderably simpler syntax, yet the highlighter is
conciderably worse, it doesn't even support heredocs.

Some syntax folding support would be nice though.. things like huge
quantities of inline documentation are really destracting.

> now *there's* an idea for scripting vim -- something that takes runit
> output and does error parsing, like it does for compiler errors for
> Java and C.

Could do similar things with exceptions.. jump directly to lines
exceptions were raised from etc.  A buffer map for browing though
modules/classes/methods would be good too, but I'm not sure how well vim
would lend itself to that.

> > Catholic?  Nah, semi-agnostic atheist who loves nVidia on an Athlon
>
> Aren't "agnostic" and "athiest" mutually exclusive terms?

Not really.  There's nothing stopping someone who doesn't believe in God
thinking the question is currently or ultimately unsolvable.

> > based system using a BSD, cos Linux is developed by a bunch of GNU
>
> I always thought it was funny that BSD also means "Blue Screen of
> Death". ;-)

Don't worry, there are drugs available that can help restore your sense
of humor ;)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [e-mail]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.