From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-02-18T12:26:03+09:00
Subject: Re: OT OmniWeb [was: Netscape 4.x?]

Thomas Hurst wrote:

> 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)? :)

Bad news.  I'm glad I've never encountered it.  It sounds like an advisory 
email to the worst offenders (Redhat?  Mandrake?) is in order.

> 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 ;)

Well, they're OK, but the learning curve includes that "initial shock".  In 
fact, that initial shock is what I was talking about.  Until you get in the 
habit of keeping track of which mode you're in, it is easy to make 
mistakes.  If you're like me, you probably hit "ESC" a lot when you don't 
need to while working in vi, just to make sure you're in the right mode.  
By now, it is second nature, and I don't notice that I do it.

> 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 ;)

Some of them, yes, but the Modes issue is the issue of POLS.  Modes tend to 
violate POLS, by (1) increasing the stuff you have to be aware of, and (2) 
increasing the number of ways you can screw up by having the computer 
behave in a way you weren't expecting (because you were, for whatever 
reason, expecting it to be in a different mode).

Yes, I agree that much of the current UI theory is silly, but much of it 
isn't, and in this particular case, I think it is right.  Again, the caveat 
is that, by now, I love modes -- however, I try not to confuse "what I 
like" with "what is correct, or best."

> It's surprising how good the Ruby syntax mode is compared with, say the

Yeah, I've noticed it.  It seems like it took a long time for the Java 
mode, which is basically a bastardized C-mode, to get as good as the Ruby 
mode.  I was really suprised that vim even had a Ruby mode, considering how 
"new" Ruby is.  Whever contributed to the vim Ruby mode was really on the 
ball.

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

I think they have it -- isn't it in the most current version of the Ruby 
mode??  I seem to remember it being mentioned in a thread in this group, 
somewhere.

> 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.

Try the Project.vim script.  It works *really* well for project management, 
considering what vim is.  If you ever want to impress an EMACS user, show 
them that mode.  It isn't as fancy as some of the EMACS applications, but 
it's a helluva lot fancier than anything else I've seen on vim, and more 
complex than I expected a vim app to be able to be.

Project.vim creates a column on the left with a folder/directory structure; 
it isn't a strict directory browser, because you define what is in the 
structure with patterns.  However, you can fold directories, open files 
with a CR, and so on.  My favorite feature is the auto-fold.  I set mine to 
two or three columns (I don't know what I have it set at now)... when you 
jump to the window, in expands to about twenty columns, and then shrinks 
when you leave it.  Great stuff.

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

Hmmm.  One dictionary I have defines an agnostic as someone who, among 
other things, neither affirms nor denies the existence of a personal Deity. 
Being an atheist means that you deny the existence of God; therefore, you 
can't also be an agnostic.

Or maybe you can.  I've also heard the definition as one who believes we 
can't know whether or not there is a supreme Deity.  I guess in this case, 
we can't know.

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

Oh, I have a healthy sense of humor.  I just keep it in a closet, for 
special occasions, and to scare small children.

-- 
 |..  "Erotic is when you do something sensitive and imaginative with a
<|>    feather.  Kinky is when you use the whole chicken."
/|\   -- Jon Collee
/|    
 |