4 ms·
Exactly. Emacs doesn't need an elaborate case for its defense; non-modal is more natural/easier-to-learn/BETTER (control-this, control-that) than modal. Not mer
by wpinbacker 15y ago
Exactly. Emacs doesn't need an elaborate case for its defense; non-modal is more natural/easier-to-learn/BETTER (control-this, control-that) than modal. Not merely my 2 cents -- it's the TRUTH!
- gcr 15y agoLong time vim user here, and I'm considering learning emacs. How do you know it's the truth? And, how did you get started?
- ams6110 15y agoI've been using emacs since the 1980s, got started in school because it's the editor one of my early comp. sci. courses used. Tried vi a few times, and I still use it occasionally on systems where emacs is not available (this is one real advantage of vi[m] it tends to be on even the most bare-bones systems), but the separate input and command modes have never really felt natural to me.