vim/emacs alternatives

What's wrong with nano?

>cli editors
>current year

whats wrong with pico

microsoft word

File: 1412426430137.gif (580KB, 480x360px)

580KB, 480x360px

>>56944276
>arrow keys

>>56944276
>>56944315
There not vim.

>>56944264
>the overdesigned clusterfucks that are vim
>remap caps to esc
wow vims fixed

>>56944276
I need more than the bare bones stuff nano offers. Features I want:

>simple dir listing to browse files
>better syntax highlighting than nano has
>fuzzy find

I want a CLI version of sublime text basically.

>>56944362
vim isn't terrible if you work with its retarded shortcuts long enough. My major issue with it is buggy plugins that crash all the time

Also as a matter of preference I absolutely hate modal editing.

>>56944429
>is buggy plugins that crash all the time
Which ones did you use?
>I absolutely hate modal editing
I did too, but honestly Vim's power can't be matched. It just takes the time to implement it and get used to the flow. But it's hard when IDE's just werk.
Though tweaking your rc is addicting.

>>56944448
>Which ones did you use?
I use the Janus set and airline.

>>56944350
whats wron with arrow keys other then moving your hands a little

>>56944487
>then moving your hands a little
that's literally their issue, the quarter second is lost efficiency and triggers them.

cli would be ed and ex.
emacs and vi are TUI's.

>>56944487
>moving your hand several inches over to find the keys you want
>vs.
>moving your hand one to the left and then back

>>56944535
>several inches
maybe if you have manlet hands

>>56944515
thanks dr autismo

>>56944562
Sorry Shrek, didn't realize it was you.

>hurrrr i can't remember how to save and close in vim
:x is so much harder than ???????
>fucking nano fags

Sublime Text.

>>56944276
Nothing, I just need something more versaitle than nano. Nano is fine for editing small things, but have a samba config or a mysql, vim is much easier.

> hjkl + w + /

>>56944689
>command line
>command line
>command line>command line
>command line
>command line
>command line

What kind of picky asshole are you that you demand a CLI editor but can't be bothered to learn emacs?

>>56944869
Fuck emacs, you can't even do something as simple as mess with tabs without wasting hours

I don't want to learn lisp and have a 5,000 line config just for some simple editing

I actually kidn of liked emacs starting out but no way am I putting up with this

>>56944264
Vis
Micro
Mg
Joe
Jed
Tilde
Uemacs (there are some more small emacs versions, like zile)

And of course:
ed

>>56944904
Okay, use Vim. Install pathogen and a colorscheme and "echo syntax enable >> .vimrc" or something.

Why do you need a CL editor so bad?

>>56944921
for remote work

>>56944264
Slap
Needs that cancerous node.js tho

File: 68747470733a2f2f73332e616d617a6f6e6177732e636f6d2f62772d636f6d2f75706c6f6164732f61636d652e706e67.png (24KB, 960x576px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 960x576px

It's time to ascend, brother.

>>56944264
just choose the one that make you feel the most special and unique since you """"""""""""""""""""hate""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" any mature standard

If you want a sublime like editor
https://github.com/slap-editor/slap
Haven't tried it but it seems up your alley

>>56944990
Not a cli editor though.

>>56945053
hey bro your keyboard is broken.

>>56945061
>editor using nodejs
No thanks

>>56944980
yo this actually looks pretty good
going to try it out, thanks anon

node.js is unfortunate but what can you do in this day and age

>>56944990
is that acme

>>56945114
node.js itself is lame but javascript for plugins seems like a great idea

>>56944264
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi and Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, ‘C-h for help’ and ‘“foo” File is read only’. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1) Unix Programmer's Manual ED(1)

NAME
ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system I administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem$ ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---

Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

>>56944264
>>56945128
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a “viitor”. Not a “emacsitor”. Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their “edlin” on a Unix standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

Ed is for those who can remember what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED “VISUAL” EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

?

>>56944308
i don't think anyone uses the CLI version of emacs these days

>>56945138
what? text only vim and emacs-nox are still used