3 ms·

You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. You also say that you used vi on terminals that lacked a contro

by gregjor 13y ago

You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. You also say that you used vi on terminals that lacked a control key. Your claims are simply false. The original docs for vi, written by Bill Joy and Mark Horton, are online. You can see quite a few places where the docs explicitly refer to control key combinations. For example: http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/12.vi/paper-8.html#section50 http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/12.vi/paper-8.html#section... vi was developed in 1976 on the ADM-3A dumb video terminal, and that terminal had a ctrl key. I remember because I had one. You can see the ADM-3A keyboard here: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/why-vim-uses-hjkl-as-arrow-keys/ http://www.catonmat.net/blog/why-vim-uses-hjkl-as-arrow-keys... The author of that page also explains why Bill Joy chose hjkl as movement keys. Note that those keys have arrows printed on them to indicate that they move the cursor when used with the ctrl key. Although vi was never intended to work on paper terminals as you claim (having the line-oriented ed embedded as a mode does not make vi equivalent to or derived from ed), the most common paper-oriented terminal in use back then was the Teletype Model 33, and it had a control key. You can clearly see it here: http://www.baudot.net/gil/tty-machines/pics/M33-ASR-Gil-Keyboard-Typing-Unit.jpg http://www.baudot.net/gil/tty-machines/pics/M33-ASR-Gil-Keyb... The ADM-3A gave way to video terminals from DEC, HP, Wyse, Hazeltine, etc., and they all had control keys. I've worked on a lot of terminals in my time, and I have to go back to keypunch machines to find something that didn't have (or need) a control key. So what machine did you use vi on that didn't have any control keys? If such a terminal indeed existed and you were forced to use it at NASA, I'm sorry. The experience obviously left you bitter and scarred. But please stop making claims about vi and early terminals that are simply and obviously false.

gregjor 13y ago
You may notice that the ADM-3A didn't have a CAPS LOCK key. A common mod involved soldering a couple of jumpers so pressing CAPS twice in rapid succession switched caps lock mode on and off. I did that to mine; back then it was fairly common for some systems to only accept uppercase commands. The Teletype ASR-33 didn't have CAPS LOCK either. I don't know if Bill Joy modded his ADM-3A, but for anyone who wonders why vi uses esc instead of caps lock to switch modes it's because there was no caps lock key back then. I believe Bill Joy and the vi cartel deliberately suppressed the caps lock feature on early terminals to make vi users miserable in the future.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gregjor 13y ago
The comment from lutusp was deleted before I finished composing my reply, but since I went to so much work (five minutes) finding the relevant evidence to refute him I'll repost it: --- lutusp 2 minutes ago | link > You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. What? "vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys"? I never said that anywhere. You will now try to find your source for this lie, then you will apologize for lying. For God's sake -- how can you people expect to have useful conversations while making stuff up? If you had said, "I think I heard you say..." or something like that, I would cut you some slack for being stupid and irresponsible, but not under these circumstances. FIND THE QUOTE. THEN, REALIZING THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST, APOLOGIZE. I won't hold my breath for you to accept adult responsibilities. --- OK, I'll take the troll bait. You wrote: "I never said that [vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys] anywhere. You will now try to find your source for this lie, then you will apologize for lying." I'm not going to apologize to you for anything, and you show yourself to be quite a jerk telling me that I will apologize for pointing out your factual errors. You don't even bother to address the facts I posted. But showing you where you wrote what you claim you never wrote is easy. You can find all of these quotes in your own comments: * "The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys..." * "... the control scheme in vi and vim arises from the requirement that it avoid the use of control keys. That was a design requirement, because the original machines it was designed for did not have control or navigation keys. How do I know this? I used those computers, and I used the early versions of the programs under discussion." * "And do you know why this arrangement exists? Because there were teletype terminals and early glass terminals that didn't have control keys. No control keys, no way to exploit their existence." * "I wrote an incremental improvement over vi, one that exploited the existence of control keys..." [Implying that vi did not or could not use the control keys, which didn't exist back then anyway according to you.] * "It's false when comparing mouse use against a modern keyboard with control and function keys, and it is certainly false for the limited keyboards for which vi/vim was designed, those keyboards that result in vi/vim not being able to exploit control characters." * "Having to enter additional keystrokes, a throwback to a computer keyboard that either didn't have control keys or couldn't exploit them, makes editing 'faster and more powerful'? Nice reasoning." * "Vim still imitates vi, and vi still imitates 1970. Extremely inefficient, steep learning curve in order not to press readily available control keys." * "As soon as someone invented the control key and its purpose, and well before Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, the retirement clock started ticking for vi and vim." [I guess not since vim is installed on all Unix and Linux distros and comes with OSX]. I provided links showing the ADM-3A and Teletype Model 33 keyboard layouts -- both with control keys. And that was the standard keyboard layout back then. Show me a terminal that was in widespread use when vi came out in 1976 that didn't have a control key. Not that it really matters if you find some weird example, because vi was specifically designed for the ADM-3A and similar terminals available in 1976 that had control keys. That's from Bill Joy. Your repeated claims that vi was designed for paper terminals, or that vi is derived from ed (rather than the reality that vi incorporated ed) are contradicted by knowledge of vi but also by the authors of vi. You wrote: * "vi, which had to be able operate with a 'paper terminal', essentially a roll of paper as a display..." * "I can say this in vi/vim's favor: it's a step up from ed, its predecessor." Both obviously false.
lutusp 13y ago
> You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. You also say that you used vi on terminals that lacked a control key. Your claims are simply false. First, I never said either of those things anywhere. But, having sampled the level of personal responsibility among the people in this thread, I won't bother asking you to try to locate your source for those false claims. The reason vi doesn't use control keys is because many keyboards in those days didn't have control keys to use. Which word don't you understand? The authors couldn't exploit keys that didn't exist, so they avoided use of an entire keyboard filled with control keys, an unfortunate necessity. This is not to say there were no keyboards with control keys, only that the designers didn't want to lock out users having keyboards without control keys. That's why vi used letter keys for arrow keys, and shifted modes by means of something other than a control key, to make control functions possible in the absence of control keys. > But please stop making claims about vi and early terminals that are simply and obviously false. What? I should defend statements that I never made, that you invented and then tried to hold me responsible for? If you will stop inventing quotes, I will stop calling you out on them. Now, as just one example among many, locate where I said "vi is lame" ANYWHERE, FOR ANY REASON, IN ANY CONTEXT. And when you discover that you invented it, you will apologize.
- gregjor 13y ago
  Bill Joy's own docs and comments on the origin of vi and the terminals it was designed for contradict your opinions. I've given examples with supporting evidence. What evidence have you given to back up your claims? I didn't invent any quotes. The quotes I posted -- using the widely-accepted quotation mark convention of English (assuming your keyboard has those!) -- are clearly indicated. The "vi is lame" statement is my own summary of your opinions expressed in this thread, it is not attributed to you as a quote but as a sentiment. Thus the lack of surrounding quotation marks. But maybe let that bone go and try to produce any evidence supporting the meager meat of your arguments about early terminals and the history of vi.

by gregjor 13y ago

gregjor 13y ago

You may notice that the ADM-3A didn't have a CAPS LOCK key. A common mod involved soldering a couple of jumpers so pressing CAPS twice in rapid succession switched caps lock mode on and off. I did that to mine; back then it was fairly common for some systems to only accept uppercase commands. The Teletype ASR-33 didn't have CAPS LOCK either. I don't know if Bill Joy modded his ADM-3A, but for anyone who wonders why vi uses esc instead of caps lock to switch modes it's because there was no caps lock key back then. I believe Bill Joy and the vi cartel deliberately suppressed the caps lock feature on early terminals to make vi users miserable in the future.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gregjor 13y ago

The comment from lutusp was deleted before I finished composing my reply, but since I went to so much work (five minutes) finding the relevant evidence to refute him I'll repost it: --- lutusp 2 minutes ago | link > You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. What? "vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys"? I never said that anywhere. You will now try to find your source for this lie, then you will apologize for lying. For God's sake -- how can you people expect to have useful conversations while making stuff up? If you had said, "I think I heard you say..." or something like that, I would cut you some slack for being stupid and irresponsible, but not under these circumstances. FIND THE QUOTE. THEN, REALIZING THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST, APOLOGIZE. I won't hold my breath for you to accept adult responsibilities. --- OK, I'll take the troll bait. You wrote: "I never said that [vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys] anywhere. You will now try to find your source for this lie, then you will apologize for lying." I'm not going to apologize to you for anything, and you show yourself to be quite a jerk telling me that I will apologize for pointing out your factual errors. You don't even bother to address the facts I posted. But showing you where you wrote what you claim you never wrote is easy. You can find all of these quotes in your own comments: * "The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys..." * "... the control scheme in vi and vim arises from the requirement that it avoid the use of control keys. That was a design requirement, because the original machines it was designed for did not have control or navigation keys. How do I know this? I used those computers, and I used the early versions of the programs under discussion." * "And do you know why this arrangement exists? Because there were teletype terminals and early glass terminals that didn't have control keys. No control keys, no way to exploit their existence." * "I wrote an incremental improvement over vi, one that exploited the existence of control keys..." [Implying that vi did not or could not use the control keys, which didn't exist back then anyway according to you.] * "It's false when comparing mouse use against a modern keyboard with control and function keys, and it is certainly false for the limited keyboards for which vi/vim was designed, those keyboards that result in vi/vim not being able to exploit control characters." * "Having to enter additional keystrokes, a throwback to a computer keyboard that either didn't have control keys or couldn't exploit them, makes editing 'faster and more powerful'? Nice reasoning." * "Vim still imitates vi, and vi still imitates 1970. Extremely inefficient, steep learning curve in order not to press readily available control keys." * "As soon as someone invented the control key and its purpose, and well before Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, the retirement clock started ticking for vi and vim." [I guess not since vim is installed on all Unix and Linux distros and comes with OSX]. I provided links showing the ADM-3A and Teletype Model 33 keyboard layouts -- both with control keys. And that was the standard keyboard layout back then. Show me a terminal that was in widespread use when vi came out in 1976 that didn't have a control key. Not that it really matters if you find some weird example, because vi was specifically designed for the ADM-3A and similar terminals available in 1976 that had control keys. That's from Bill Joy. Your repeated claims that vi was designed for paper terminals, or that vi is derived from ed (rather than the reality that vi incorporated ed) are contradicted by knowledge of vi but also by the authors of vi. You wrote: * "vi, which had to be able operate with a 'paper terminal', essentially a roll of paper as a display..." * "I can say this in vi/vim's favor: it's a step up from ed, its predecessor." Both obviously false.

lutusp 13y ago

> You repeatedly claim that vi is lame because it has to work with keyboards with no control keys. You also say that you used vi on terminals that lacked a control key. Your claims are simply false. First, I never said either of those things anywhere. But, having sampled the level of personal responsibility among the people in this thread, I won't bother asking you to try to locate your source for those false claims. The reason vi doesn't use control keys is because many keyboards in those days didn't have control keys to use. Which word don't you understand? The authors couldn't exploit keys that didn't exist, so they avoided use of an entire keyboard filled with control keys, an unfortunate necessity. This is not to say there were no keyboards with control keys, only that the designers didn't want to lock out users having keyboards without control keys. That's why vi used letter keys for arrow keys, and shifted modes by means of something other than a control key, to make control functions possible in the absence of control keys. > But please stop making claims about vi and early terminals that are simply and obviously false. What? I should defend statements that I never made, that you invented and then tried to hold me responsible for? If you will stop inventing quotes, I will stop calling you out on them. Now, as just one example among many, locate where I said "vi is lame" ANYWHERE, FOR ANY REASON, IN ANY CONTEXT. And when you discover that you invented it, you will apologize.

gregjor 13y ago
Bill Joy's own docs and comments on the origin of vi and the terminals it was designed for contradict your opinions. I've given examples with supporting evidence. What evidence have you given to back up your claims? I didn't invent any quotes. The quotes I posted -- using the widely-accepted quotation mark convention of English (assuming your keyboard has those!) -- are clearly indicated. The "vi is lame" statement is my own summary of your opinions expressed in this thread, it is not attributed to you as a quote but as a sentiment. Thus the lack of surrounding quotation marks. But maybe let that bone go and try to produce any evidence supporting the meager meat of your arguments about early terminals and the history of vi.