3 ms·

> 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

by lutusp 13y ago

> 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." Read much? You claimed that I said "vi is lame". In point of fact, I never said any such thing anywhere. Prove me wrong -- locate a quote that does not exist. You're inventing arguments to have with yourself. I just went through your list of quotes, and everything in the list is true. "... there were teletype terminals and early glass terminals that didn't have control keys ..." Care to dispute this truth? > I'm not going to apologize to you for anything ... Of course not. You also won't avoid making things up as you have done in this and prior posts. Which leads an intelligent person to wonder what the point is of trying to discuss things with you.

gregjor 13y ago
Please. You are being deliberately thick. I didn't say you literally wrote "vi is lame" or I would have put it in quotes. You figuratively say vi/vim are lame/terrible/antique/broken over and over. Anyone reading this thread gets your opinion of vi and vim and will agree that "vi is lame" sums it up even though you don't use those exact words. You can dispute the presence or absence of control keys on early terminals, sure. But find one that was in widespread use after vi was released in 1976. I asked you already to show an example of a terminal that didn't have a control key that you used vi on. It's irrelevant, really, since vi was designed specifically for terminals like the ADM-3A that DID have a control key. Bill Joy's original vi docs support that statement. The possible existence of some early terminal that lacks a control key doesn't change the fact that vi wasn't designed for such terminals, so it shouldn't be surprising that vi didn't work well on such things. Supposing they existed. I posted links and screen shots. What evidence do you have? I haven't made anything up. I posted your own quotes verbatim and cited my sources for early terminals and the history of vi. Give it a rest. No one is interested in this anymore and you are just making a fool out of yourself.

by lutusp 13y ago

gregjor 13y ago

Please. You are being deliberately thick. I didn't say you literally wrote "vi is lame" or I would have put it in quotes. You figuratively say vi/vim are lame/terrible/antique/broken over and over. Anyone reading this thread gets your opinion of vi and vim and will agree that "vi is lame" sums it up even though you don't use those exact words. You can dispute the presence or absence of control keys on early terminals, sure. But find one that was in widespread use after vi was released in 1976. I asked you already to show an example of a terminal that didn't have a control key that you used vi on. It's irrelevant, really, since vi was designed specifically for terminals like the ADM-3A that DID have a control key. Bill Joy's original vi docs support that statement. The possible existence of some early terminal that lacks a control key doesn't change the fact that vi wasn't designed for such terminals, so it shouldn't be surprising that vi didn't work well on such things. Supposing they existed. I posted links and screen shots. What evidence do you have? I haven't made anything up. I posted your own quotes verbatim and cited my sources for early terminals and the history of vi. Give it a rest. No one is interested in this anymore and you are just making a fool out of yourself.