Re: OT: Unicode and vi(m). Was Re: Great SWT Program
nebulous99@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:25 pm, Arne VajhHj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
Then "ANSI X3.64" is not the same thing as the ANSI I was discussing.
Color may have been introduced in a later version.
When you communicate in a public forum you should use common definitions
instead of your own definitions.
I was using common definitions instead of my own definitions; I was
using ANSI to refer to the particular terminal type than "ANSI"
usually refers to, at least in the context of BBS connectivity and
configuration, which is the only context where I've run into it. If
"ANSI", in the context of terminal types, tends to mean something else
in some other context, that's hardly my fault and should not be my
problem either.
"common definition"
Where are that common definition ?
Don't tell me they're actually making new standards for text
terminals, even though the entire class of such hardware is obsolete?
I would guess that over half of this worlds computer professionals
use a VT emulator frequently.
What on earth for? Surely computer professionals all have significant
local CPU and storage capacity, given how many random individuals
outside the profession do? Voluntarily eschewing them to use a cramped
and limited interaction style over a remote, (comparatively) low-
bandwidth high-latency connection seems like some sort of masochistic
fetishism under the circumstances. Much easier to work with remote
documents by editing a copy locally and using FTP etc.; in the case of
computer professionals, using e.g. Eclipse-in-SVN-client-mode sounds
*much* nicer than a terminal emulator connected to an ssh session
running a text-mode unix editor over a laggy internet connection. :P
Sure there are a lot of people sitting and writing code on Windows XP
in Eclipse or IntelliJ or whatever.
But the code is neither tested or running in production on Windows XP.
Arne