Talk:Vim (text editor): Difference between revisions
Larry_Sanger (talk) mNo edit summary |
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The bulleted list of VIM features isn't really what we should expect in an encyclopedia article--i.e., it shouldn't be a list, it should be ordinary English prose sentences. --[[LMS]] |
The bulleted list of VIM features isn't really what we should expect in an encyclopedia article--i.e., it shouldn't be a list, it should be ordinary English prose sentences. --[[LMS]] |
||
---- |
|||
I found that someone had put up a link to a contributors page, on which he was the only person listed. This itself demonstrates the difficulties of trying to keep track of contributors by hand rather than automatically: unless (1) everyone voluntarily puts his or her own name on the list, or (2) someone tirelessly updates the list to make sure it's accurate, then the list is ''certainly'' going to be unreliable. There is another problem with such lists, and that is that it's really unnecessary. Why waste our time keeping track of contributors? Does it make them more motivated? No. Do we know what we've done? Yes, if we remember. Does anyone care what anyone else has done? Not really, except maybe when it's far above and beyond the call of duty (several names come to mind). In that case, simply being a participant is enough to confer community recognition and honor. :-) --[[LMS]] |
|||
Revision as of 04:29, 29 June 2001
VIM vs. Emacs: I don't think we need to go there. Both editors have their strong and weak points, but I think it's very hard to compare them directly. vi is used by people who start and exit their editor a hundred times a day, while Emacs tends to be used as a large operating environment. I can see any article on the subject becoming a religious war. -- STG
Perhaps vi vs emacs should be part of the Flame war entry?
The bulleted list of VIM features isn't really what we should expect in an encyclopedia article--i.e., it shouldn't be a list, it should be ordinary English prose sentences. --LMS
I found that someone had put up a link to a contributors page, on which he was the only person listed. This itself demonstrates the difficulties of trying to keep track of contributors by hand rather than automatically: unless (1) everyone voluntarily puts his or her own name on the list, or (2) someone tirelessly updates the list to make sure it's accurate, then the list is certainly going to be unreliable. There is another problem with such lists, and that is that it's really unnecessary. Why waste our time keeping track of contributors? Does it make them more motivated? No. Do we know what we've done? Yes, if we remember. Does anyone care what anyone else has done? Not really, except maybe when it's far above and beyond the call of duty (several names come to mind). In that case, simply being a participant is enough to confer community recognition and honor. :-) --LMS