Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Dec 2007 08:01:16 GMT
In article <ea0142fc-44f7-4f23-bea9-06769858c4fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:02 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then it's constrained by the limitations of the real text-terminal
you're using, regardless.
Well .... Except that what one seems to have, in the Linux
systems I've used, is a small number of "virtual consoles" that
do emulate text terminals (in the sense of providing no graphical
features beyond what would be available in -- VGA mode??) but
do also provide mouse support.
And if you ever find a VT-100 with a pointing device you'll be able to
use this.
What can you possibly be talking about here. These virtual
consoles use the same monitor/keyboard/mouse setup that also can
run a graphical system.
[ snip ]
Ludicrous. Vi is from the stone age. The mouse hadn't been invented
yet. I'm not sure the guy that invented the mouse had even been born
yet. And since then, vi has not gone through a transition like Word
for DOS -> Word for Windows or anything like that. It's still a clunky
text-mode app with an archaic excuse for a user interface. Why would
someone modernize some version in the one respect, without more or
less rewriting it to at least be no more retro than music from the
nineties? :)
And yet someone has, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say
that several someones have, judging by the fact that apparently there
are several "vi clones" in existence.
The fact that the original vi didn't provide support for a mouse
doesn't strike me as a perfect predictor of whether something that
bills itself as "vi improved" (that would be vim) does.
Based on a very quick attempt to Google-research what "safe mode"
is -- yes, Unix's single-user mode is the same kind of thing.
It's independent of the number of user accounts set up
Okay. So the "single" in "single-user" doesn't actually refer to the
number of users. I guess this is another of those odd unixisms like
Bent's meaning for "incremental search" (or is that one an emacsism
rather than a more general unixism?)
Sure it does -- it refers to the number of users that can be
using the system at one time. That "single-user" in "single-user
mode" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "single-user" in
"single-user system" -- <shrug>.
[ snip ]
And yet even in *those* unusual circumstances, vim could make use
of a mouse.
Not when the user refused to touch it and considered it the spawn of
Satan, surely?
Whether particular users do or do not make use of a feature seems
to me to be irrelevant to whether it exists. I understood you to
be claiming that this particular feature doesn't exist. Perhaps I
misunderstood, and you agree that vim *can* make use of a mouse,
even without a graphical subsystem, but somehow that doesn't count
because not all users make use of this feature.
[ snip ]
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- References:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: twerpinator
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: nebulous99
- Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: are web services alive?
- Next by Date: Re: Great SWT Program
- Previous by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
