From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 3 23:55:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663AF106564A for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32F268FC17 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:55:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20554 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jun 2010 23:55:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2010 23:55:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=RuUGW/KbPUmC07JFffKS/es2j1+P03jL+gQHZA8EXY7tpIjdPkntmyHBmPkCY4ac9snqQSU6jUtzsEXisxeFGg0aWSGz5iAtyIUh5TJBDLV1dHknVfRE1/VA5jT7DP6y; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKKFe-00027B-Ht for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:55:07 -0600 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:54:52 -0600 Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:54:52 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100603235452.GB15773@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WhfpMioaduB5tiZL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: Strying off topic, but Re: text editor X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:55:08 -0000 --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:14:19AM -0400, illoai@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > I don't know much, but the source tarball is slightly > over 7m. I suspect a lot of that is documentation. One thing Vim definitely has going for it is the breadth and depth of user documentation that comes with it. >=20 > In any case, the executable size is only loosely > related to the actual running size. True. On the other hand, to offer a comparison that actually came up in "real life", a co-worker once needed to edit a file. She tried using emacs to do so, but emacs couldn't open the file because it was so friggin' large that trying to open it with emacs exhausted system resources. She asked me how to achieve the same thing in Vim that she had intended to do with emacs because she discovered that it opened just fine in Vim. Obviously, this was very much an edge-case. The file was *huge*, measured in the gigabytes. It's not a problem you're likely to encounter in general usage. It does give me a little faith in the ability of Vim to avoid abusing system resources (and of vi in general). --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkwIQMwACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXAwQCg0GsoAax4acHGSYCiHrJZtdti rlUAoJ04DuRSnC5JtoQl5IrQTPvXVsA6 =rB3Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL--