3 ms·
You are reading that right. If it makes it seem any more sane, that's because many text editors of the time weren't written for screens ("displays"), but for t
by LukeShu 12y ago
You are reading that right. If it makes it seem any more sane, that's because many text editors of the time weren't written for screens ("displays"), but for teletypes, where you couldn't possibly see your code verbatim as you were editing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ASR-33_at_CHM.agr.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ASR-33_at_CHM.agr.jpg
For example, the standard editor on early Unix was 'ed'. It is available on most modern *nix systems, if you care to try it :). Bill Joy later modified ed to be a display editor, or 'vi'sual editor; so if you have you have used Vi, it shouldn't be too unfamiliar.
- jemfinch 12y agovi evolved from ex (not ed), didn't it?
- LukeShu 12y agoWell, ex is 'ex'tended ed, and vi and ex are the same program. From 1976-1979, the way to open vi was to execute 'ex', and run the 'vi[sual]' command in ex. In 1979, ex learned to launch the 'vi' command automatically if argv[0] is "vi", and a symlink from 'bin/vi' to 'bin/ex' was added.