[OT] Editors & mac to Linux stories

[Clinton MacDonald]

Derick:

Here's another off-topic rant of mine -- feel free to ignore it or 
comment, as you see fit. As I re-read my response to Derick's comments, 
I see that, once again, I mostly agree with him, but have to shoot off 
my mouth anyway. :-)

The executive summary: I agree that vi and emacs (and their updated 
cousins) are powerful and useful instruments (and not so bad as I make 
out), and are essential in configuring Linux in any fashion. However, I 
still see the need for powerful GUI-based text editors for the new 
generation of Linux (and Mac OS X) users. BBEdit is only one example of 
the power and ease-of-use that can be had in such GUI-based text editors.

Derick Centeno wrote:
> I'm surprised that many don't know about vi or vim! vi is
> THE UNIX programmer's editor; vim is vi with color display
> and output abilities. Emacs and Xemacs are also very powerful
> and flexible editors in their own rights.

I do know about them, and so, I am sure, do most people who have used 
Yellow Dog Linux for more than a few days. In fact, I am *certain* that 
I mentioned them in my earlier post.

I don't *like* using them, but I know about them. :-) vi and emacs were 
invented in the pioneering days of Unix and its predecessor operating 
systems. In those days, most editing was done using half-duplex 
teletypes to edit code using ed. CRT monitors showing a limited text 
character set were a major innovation. Since text was the only input 
mode and there wasn't much in the way of meta keys, vi and emacs 
developed mechanisms to change mode from keyboard input only. These were 
hot and flashy items in the day, since keyboards were proprietary, and 
one could not count on having as much as a shift key. I learned (but 
have since forgotten) vi soon after that era. When it was the only game 
in town, it was pretty cool.

> Anyone of them blow BBEdit out of the water as regards to
> functions and flexibility.

Now, them's fightin' words! :-) BBEdit inspires its religious zealots, 
just like open source software or the latest flavor from Ben & Jerry's. 
Some users like function and flexibility, some like interface and 
consistency. Don't confuse quality with quantity in every case. 
Microsoft (spit) Word has a large *quantity* of functions, but that 
doesn't make it the highest *quality* word processor available (the sad 
fact that there are so few high quality word processors available for 
Mac OS X is the subject of a different off-topic rant).

I'm an interface and consistency guy, myself. Unlike Unix/Linux, on the 
Mac platform, there are not enough general-purpose tools that can 
perform a wide range of functions within a single application interface. 
For Unix/Linux, that application is vi or emacs, on the Mac it is BBEdit.

BBEdit is awfully good, though it falls short of being perfect, even for 
a GUI-lovin' guy like myself (for instance, I would really love to see 
inline spell checking for BBEdit, which I am told is on the way). 
However, it has so many text-munging functions -- functions that are as 
easily discoverable by a novice user as well as an expert -- that it is 
generally the first application I open in the morning and the last one I 
turn off at night. On the other hand, the few features it is missing irk 
me, because I generally must have *two* text editors open at all times 
with overlapping feature sets (SubEthaEdit -- whose name is tremendously 
forgettable -- is a dark horse contender for BBEdit's crown, though it, 
too, has limitations and annoyances).

> vi and vim can be modified via either writing scripts
> within .profile or in our case, .bash_profile and
> creating vim resource files directing vim to behave
> in specific ways.

I only wish I had the brain cells left to learn how to write such 
scripts. :-)

> Each program can guide you how to use it by itself!

That is true. emacs is famous for its self-directed tutorial, which I am 
looking forward to using when time permits. Until then, I will use vi 
and my brain-dead cheat sheet.

> I haven't yet figured out how to get vi to produce the
> output header similar to how BBedit does it, but it's
> just a matter of time. Once I've done that (which is
> the only reason I like BBedit anyway) I will have no
> use to use BBedit at all.

I don't know what is an "output header" (a programming thing, maybe?), 
but I think this is an example of the kinds of things that the folks at 
Bare Bones Software have been trying to put into BBEdit. I was 
introduced to BBEdit in 1993 for a scientific project (this was in the 
early days of the genome project). At the time, BBEdit was the only tool 
available on the Mac to perform grep-style find-and-replaces (Mac-Perl 
became available soon afterwards, but its learning curve was higher than 
BBEdit's). BBEdit could also open files containing greater than 32 kB of 
text, a major limitation in Mac text editors of the time. For the Mac OS 
of that time, BBEdit was the closest thing we had to some of the 
powerful text-munging tools that had been available on Unix (Linux was 
still an infant) at the time. Nevertheless, non-hackers like myself 
could use BBEdit without trouble because it conformed to Mac interface 
conventions (cmd-right arrow to navigate to the end of a line, etc.). A 
vi or emacs clone probably would have failed in the market because we 
Mac users are so highly invested in our comfortable little human 
interface guidelines. From then to now, BBEdit essentially grew up as a 
Mac application that added features, but remained true to its roots.

> OpenOffice.org is not quite there yet, so MS Office
> can probably survive for quite a bit longer. The
> clock is ticking already, however.

I agree with your assessment 100%! OpenOffice.org is trying too hard to 
be a clone of Microsoft <spit> Office *1997*, while Office on the Mac 
(and on the PC, I assume) are actually becoming more and more refined, 
and less and less buggy. I am looking forward to smaller, more elegant 
applications like AbiWord to win over the Mac OS X market.

> There may be scientific and other tools available for
> Mac OS X, but they are proprietary. One may be saving
> time, but whether one is saving money depends strictly
> upon one's planned use of the computer and what he/she
> has in mind to develop.

Respectfully, I must disagree with you. This is one area in which I do 
have some experience, and I believe you are wrong. There are many 
scientific and other tools available for the Mac, AND MOST OF THEM ARE 
*FREE*. most of the scientific packages I use in genome searching and 
the like are the same ones that are used in Linux, except they have been 
ported to Mac OS X. In fact, I am looking forward to "retiring" my 
desktop Power Mac G4 to server status, and the major program we will run 
is one called WU-BLAST, an important DNA searching tool. WU-BLAST is 
open source and free (I am looking forward to this project -- lots of 
fun). The ones that are not free, usually have considerable value, and 
are worth the price (since I pay their salaries from grants, my lab 
workers' time is the most expensive commodity I have).

I'm sorry I let this go on so long. I will now return you to your 
regular program, already in progress.

Best wishes,
Clint

-- 
Dr. Clinton C. MacDonald | <mailto:clint DOT macdonald AT sbcglobal DOT net>