Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:08:46 +0200 From: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin Message-ID: <20090624140846.GB1974@phenom.cordula.ws> In-Reply-To: <d873d5be0906240613s1050323bpdd28aaedddf2cb9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <d873d5be0906240613s1050323bpdd28aaedddf2cb9d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote: > > >About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in > >this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares > >which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no > >stretch of imagination would it qualify as an editor, because an editor > >can meaningfully edit only what it can first show. And ed has never had > >anything to show. A modern operating system like FreeBSD should really > >be kicking ed out of the distribution completely : bad ideas don't have > >to be necessarily perpetuated just for the sake of compliance with the > >original concept of Unix. > > If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're going to have > to come up with some concrete reasons for doing so, not just make a > (long and hyperbolic) statement that you don't like it. Please don't touch/remove ed(1)! * It's still very useful on non-curses/termcap capable terminals like raw serial lines etc. * It's also very useful in batch/script mode, as there are some multi-line text processing problems that you can't tackle with sed(1) alone, and where awk(1) or even perl, python etc.. are overkill. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090624140846.GB1974>