acme VS Traditional Ex - Vi editor

Everyone should try Acme for a month and then go back to your favourite editor. http://acme.cat-v.org/. - Source: Hacker News / 5 months ago

Hmm, so while he was busy optimizing and learning and tweaking his keyboard setup, others invent game changing programming languages like Go, and then also write text editors that make heavy use of the mouse, and of mouse chording: http://acme.cat-v.org/ So I’m sceptical whether this approach of spending ages on this really is that productive, cost-benefit-wise. Usually it doesn’t stop there, but this optimization... - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

Uzbl (https://www.uzbl.org/) used to do that but it seems it was too heavy in practice. Today I'm more interestea in turning the web into a more textual format to integrate it in acme (http://acme.cat-v.org/) which is already built around modularity. Making the web a content provider and letting me interact withit the way I want. - Source: Hacker News / 12 months ago

As you may have guessed form my username, I enjoy the acme editor. Source: 12 months ago

Back in the Plan 9 days, with the acme text editor, a non-monospace font was default and fairly common to use. Whilst I was a command line guy before and still a command line guy after, the dynamic font width wasn't *too* bad once you get used to it (Though yes, it is less efficient). Source: about 1 year ago

The traditional vi is still available. I have it on my Fedora system. Source: over 1 year ago

Is the current version of Vi older than GNU Emacs? Pacman links to this page which states the software was made an 76 and adopted an open source license in 2002. Source: about 2 years ago

I installed ex-vi on my computer, and it created vi as a symbolic link to the ex program that it installed. See man vi on your computer; you might find some more information about which vi you have. After having installed ex-vi, I see the following in man vi on my computer:. Source: about 2 years ago

Unlike many GNU distributions, it looks the distribution you are using does not install vim-tiny as vi; instead it seems to have either Keith Bostic's implementation of vi, called nvi)[https://sites.google.com/a/bostic.com/keithbostic/vi/], or the real vi (at least, the closest to the real vi that Bill Joy wrote). Source: about 2 years ago

As NilsLandt said, you probably did not use vi on these machines, you can compile it for comparison, the source used for Arch Linux is here http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/. Source: about 2 years ago