I learned vi when I got sick of trying to echo my scripts into files without any typos and then having to add an eof and start over when I did have a typo. eventually vi felt less painful.
@djsundog I learned vi (enough to be useful) when I was having to edit files across a 1200bps modem connection. I tried emacs, but the terminal rendering was much slower as I recall. So vi it was! It's not my go to editor, but it's been good to know, that's for sure.
@djsundog I learned vi when I got tired of having to install nano every time I got on to a new machine with a lightweight os
mg is (much) smaller than full emacs, has the emacs functionality needed for my editing.
It comes down to: mg doesn't have modal editing. Modal editing is akin to "ooh! a pause! time for 87 interruptions!" for my brain. Fight that, or use an editor that flows with my brain? I'm using the one that doesn't fight my brain.
Comes in base openbsd install because "you shouldn't need to learn more than vi and emacs."
So I can use enough vi to quit (or if it's a very small edit, make that edit,) and mg for local env, and full emacs with tramp for remote.
I don't know which codebase is smaller, vi or mg. I'm betting mg. I'm betting neither took very much time to compile in 1990, either.
/me still uses cat > file instead of vi, as it's less painful due to the whole modal editing thing. FAR less painful. Quick fix in mg afterward if something goes wrong. Very simple. I'll bet you'd do the same and substitute vi - and I'm fine with that. Use what works for YOU.
And at one point I did write a thing for vim that fixed it to use emacs keys, and avoid modal editing. Was in one of those "need to get a better workflow" periods. Lots of folks reccomended vim plus some plugin type things.
Turns out you can't really avoid modal editing with vim, and most of the plugin folks were pointing to for efficiency and enhancement - well those conflicted with emacs keybindings. Attempts to fix to remove the need for modal editing left it in such a broken state (think: no keys work at all, pop up panels don't close, fullscreen items that covered up where the cursor actually is inserting text) that I just left it. I had -stuff to do- and fixing that had no benefit except to me personally, and it wasn't a benefit at all, just a ton of wasted effort.
Tried a few other editors, am now using Wing IDE + emacs keys for it's debugger abilities with python, and emacs for everything else.
(Even on Wayland only, a fellow in Japan has a GTK3 version that doesn't need X. )
And yes, I do feel the need to explain this to vim users, due to their CONSTANT insistence that their method is the one true way and there cannot ever ever ever ever ever EVER be anything other than vi, and how no one could possibly EVEREVEREVEREVEREVERever get any work done.
Naw, they get their stuff done and work on cool stuff their own way.
And yes there are lots of annoying emacs users. One author, for example. INCREDIBLY annoying. If I had to work with him I'd be using something else just to piss him off.
(Or I'd rebuild the xemacs things. I'd probably rebuild xemacs.)
@djsundog I just got tired of using 10 different configurations depending on where I am. I used to make emacs my default because I like it better, but vi was still the default on systems I worked on but didn't administer. It's not worth setting up environments on 50 systems so I can edit configuration files (on any given system) once in a blue moon. Recently I just gave up on emacs and decided to go with the flow. vi is fine and at this point I know it almost as well, anyway.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!