-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Adam S. Moskowitz hath spake thusly:
> "Derek D. Martin" <ddm@pizzashack.org> wrote:
> > - automatic code formatting
> > - paragraph justification
> > - automatic word wrapping
> 
> I claim these are all "word processing" of one sort or another and
> not editing. Besides, with fmt and indent, you can shove the ed
> buffer through them and get the same result.

...which doesn't help me at ALL while I'm actually writing code/text
or what have you.  Unless I want to run my file through those
utilities after every line I write.

> > - editing macros (AFAIK)
> 
> You can do a crude form of these in ed. :-)

Well I personally don't use them, but I suspect someone who does make
heavy use of them (in, say, vi) would find them inadequate.

> > - syntax highlighting
> 
> OK, ed can't do that -- but that's a development environment or
> coding tool, not a text editor.

I don't agree at all.  I use a text editor to edit files of many
different types -- code, config files, notes to myself, e-mail, etc.
My text editor colors ALL of these files for me, to make it easy to
distinguish different parts of the text file.  It makes it MUCH easier
to read AND to write/edit.  When I write code, it formats the code for
me, (mostly) automatically, making it much easier to read, which in
turn makes it easier to write the subsequent code.

[I used to use emacs heavily, but now I use vim. It's lighter weight,
and IMO does a better job with syntax highlighting.]

> > There's not much difference between a text editor and a word
> > processor.
> > They both have the same basic purpose: insert and edit text in a
> > text file.
> 
> I beg to differ: Text editors focus on the contents of the file,
> word processors on the appearance of the contents. The best ones
> each do their job well and the other job anywhere from less well to
> poorly.

You have a very narrow definition of text editor.  By your definition,
anything that is a "true" text editor isn't particularly useful, or at
least is hard to work with for many purposes.

There's a reason people don't use line editors anymore.  They're
cumbersome and tedious to work with.  Most modern text editors, in
addition to having a more natural interface, also take into
consideration human & usability factors.  This does not make them word
processors.  It just makes them nicer to use.

I prefer to think of a word processor as a program whose ultimate
intended output is a printed document that looks nice.  A text editor
does not.  This is the primary fundamental difference between the two.
This does not mean a text editor should have no regard for user
conveniences and readability of the text files they are used to
produce.  The point of ALL computer programs is to make some tedious
or time-consuming process less so for the user.  Why a text editor
should not have these features is beyond me.

- -- 
Derek Martin               ddm@pizzashack.org    
- ---------------------------------------------
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9XFtudjdlQoHP510RAlqPAJ9pk24OsmGJxXT9XMr6oNupko8YhACguKuV
bCtcYUX1D0S3omBoBt0nmFs=
=/OuS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----