Talk:Editor war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What about joe?[edit]

Emacs and vi are not the only popular editors. There is a significant "joe" (Joe's Own Editor) camp for those who dislike vi (and believe it to be a glorified version of ed/edlin), and may have cut their teeth on non-unix style text editors such as the IDE's of Borland's Turbo C or Pasal, or MicroPro's WordStar editor under CP/M or MS-DOS. --Thoric 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are zillions of text editors out there, the comp.sources.unix moderator at one point refused to post new editors for that reason.
The Editor War refers to a clash between two of those, that happened to be the most popular with the early Usenet crowd.
WordStar would be a word-processor, not a text editor.--Per Abrahamsen 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this article would do well to have a flat statement like: While the "editor war" between emacs and vi remains relevant for many older users, most new users will look at either in complete disgust or horror and will continue to search for "a proper editor" which is easier to use by default. Menus and common hotkey combinations are common arguments for avoiding those two editors, even though they both could be customised to become friendlier. Common alternates include nano/pico, joe and a small handful of others (very small). Many users will reach for GUI editors whenever possible, most of which are much more "sane" in the eyes of these users. -- Sy / (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a good idea. This is about vi vs emacs, not about text editors in general. --Apyule 14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the article's name is Editor wars, not vi vs emacs. I believe a reference to other editors wouldn't hurt, although it would seem important to note that the canonical example of editor wars is indeed emacs vs vi (which would lead nicely into the rest of the article as it is now). I would not, however, agree with the example given by Sy above. "complete disgust or horror" does not seem like the sort of term we should be using on an enciclopedic article (and is subjective to begin with), "easier to use" is subjective, and I'm not at all convinced that emacs and vi are only relevant for older users. Capi 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree here; I'm a young guy, and I am interested in both editors (haven't made a choice yet) because I think they are both going to be more powerful than most of what else is out there in the long run. I think many people especially in the development community agree.
If you want the power of emacs, but were brought up on OSX or XP/Vista/Win7/Win8, there is a distro called ErgoEmacs. See also the distro Cream, on top of vim. (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody seriously uses JOE— Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talkcontribs) 14:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The link to doesn't work. Should I just remove it, or does anyone know of a working replacement URL? (Interestingly, the hostname resolves, but to an IP that either isn't in use at all or is used by a stealth-firewalled machine that isn't a Web server.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

seem to work now Xchmelmilos (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But is broken again as of 2013. Alternative here.[1] (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of external links section[edit]

Cleaned up the external links somewhat:

There will be space now for the usual ten or so links to the editor war, showing comparisons or war-like information. As it was, it was a drag on a good quality and style. — CpiralCpiral 23:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Current?? state of the editor war[edit]

The section headed "Current state of the editor war seems to refer largely to 1999. That's not really current at the time of writing (2014). Perhaps it ought to be renamed or updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:F111:BDB8:5CD6:8D81:39B8 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that standalone (un-integrated) plaintext editor programs have declined in practical importance over the last 15 years. They still have their advocates, are often included in standard software distributions, and are essential for certain highly-specialized tasks, but purely pragmatic programmers (who weren't necessarily around in the 1990s, and use whatever tool helps them code fastest) often don't use them... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR... Huihermit (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
And short-sighted. Whatever fad languages these IDEs are integrated with won't necessarily be the best choice in 10 years. And the "pragmatic" programmers will have to learn another editor, along with another language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talkcontribs) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)