I consider it strange that he begins his Vi/Vim tutorial with a page of (bad) Emacs bashing. I mean, he obviously knows the virtues of his editor (I skimmed the

I consider it strange that he begins his Vi/Vim tutorial with a page of (bad) Emacs bashing. I mean, he obviously knows the virtues of his editor (I skimmed the next few pages), but why begin it with comments like this one: > Emacs is based in Lisp. 'Nuff said. What is that supposed to mean? You can critize Elisp for not having lexically scoped variables (although there is lexical-let in 'cl) or tail-call optimization. But the above "statement" sounds as if he has never looked at Elisp code. Btw. if you are new to Emacs, make sure to have the sources installed as well - you can then look at the implementation of every function with C-h f function-name and then selecting the filename (this is also true of the functions and special forms written in C). If you do this for a while, you will recognize that the Emacs programming model makes sense - and it's not so much because of or in spite of Lisp - it's more because of the Emacs-specific abstractions (point, buffers, markers, buffer-local variables, ...) that are quite different from the usual paradigms most of us are used to, but nevertheless very powerful for text-munging. > Vi commands are a Unix standard. yeah, but bash (for example) and other programs using the Readline library default to Emacs keybindings... > Cleaner interface. Only one line is used > up for commands; everything else is your text. > Easy to read. Good. ok, my Emacs uses two lines (one for the modeline and one for the minibuffer). Of course, ed has a much cleaner interface than both Vi/Emacs...