Discussion:
Suggestion for TPU: revert
(too old to reply)
JF Mezei
2004-10-28 00:22:55 UTC
Permalink
In the event someone is still collecting suggestions for improvements on VMS
applications, adding a REVERT command (and in the decwindows interfacem a
FILE->REVERT menu) would be very welcome.

It quicker to quit and then restart editor than deleting all the text, and
including the file again. (recalling the originall GET command yields a
"buffer anme already in use" annoying message).
John Vottero
2004-10-28 01:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
In the event someone is still collecting suggestions for improvements on VMS
applications, adding a REVERT command (and in the decwindows interfacem a
FILE->REVERT menu) would be very welcome.
It quicker to quit and then restart editor than deleting all the text, and
including the file again. (recalling the originall GET command yields a
"buffer anme already in use" annoying message).
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
JF Mezei
2004-10-28 02:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.

If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Bob Harris
2004-10-28 02:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
And your response is just as inflexible as the reply you are quoting.
Can't it be possible for multiple approaches?

Couldn't a customer develop an extension for EVE to do what the OP
wanted. Get it on the OpenVMS Freeware CD. Make it popular. Convince
OpenVMS developers this is such a customer desirable feature that it is
integrated into the base EVE package in some future version.

Why does it have to originate from an OpenVMS developer?

Nothing wrong with asking. And nothing wrong with OpenVMS providing the
feature. But why does that preclude other solutions? 2, 3, 4,
alternate solutions.

Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)

Bob Harris

PS. There is a vi TPU emulator, and I used it on OpenVMS for about 6
years, until I started working on Tru64 UNIX.
JF Mezei
2004-10-28 03:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
Nothing wrong with asking. And nothing wrong with OpenVMS providing the
feature. But why does that preclude other solutions? 2, 3, 4,
alternate solutions.
The problem with community work that overrides a product supplied by
Digital/Compaq/HP is one of management (having to install something that
ovverrides a default product on VMS). And because not everyone will have
installed it, you can't expect it to be present when you use a customer's
machine.
Nigel Barker
2004-10-28 09:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
If you are perverted enough to want to use it we already have vi available on
VMS as part of the GNV package.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2004-10-30 12:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nigel Barker
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
If you are perverted enough to want to use it we already have vi available on
VMS as part of the GNV package.
There are also at least a couple of public domain clones of vi.
One of which I recall is called VILE.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Post by Nigel Barker
--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-30 14:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Post by Nigel Barker
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
Once-upon-a-time, there was a TPU extension that did a pretty good job
of emulating vi. At some point, TPU was updated (around VMS 5-5?) and
it stopped working and I never investigated why.

Too bad, it was a fine emulation and it allowed you to use the keypad,
DO and the like at the same time... I think I found it on one of the
DECUS tapes, so if someone wanted to resurrect it, you could look
there.
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Post by Nigel Barker
If you are perverted enough to want to use it we already have vi available on
VMS as part of the GNV package.
There are also at least a couple of public domain clones of vi.
One of which I recall is called VILE.
VILE is great. I use it on all the systems I use, which includes
VMS, Windows (cygwin and non-cygwin versions work great), several
flavors of Unix/Linux. It provides multiple windows, unlimited
UNDO and syntax coloring (on some platforms, I don't think this works
on
VMS or at least I've never tried to get it working there).

It builds like a dream on anything and only requires the executable
to run. You can also drop the help file where you put the executable
if you want the command reference. Syntax coloring/highlighting is a
bit more setup, on those platforms that support that, but it's not very
much work. The help file has everything you need there.

Unlike standard vi, it also has keyboard macros, a feature I
find indispensible.

VILE is under constant development. Start
http://dickey.his.com/vile/vile.html . I understand that a new version
will appear in the upcoming Freeware CD. I don't know if it's been on
the other Freeware CDs and I'm too lazy to look.
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Post by Nigel Barker
--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
---
-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
JF Mezei
2004-10-30 18:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Many have mentioned how great "vi" is.

Is this the same VI that isn't even quite full screen editor and requires you
type in special key sequence to let you type text on a line otherwise all your
keystrokes are interpreted as commands ?

Does VI have a gui version ?
Z
2004-10-30 18:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Does VI have a gui version ?
vim.
Bob Harris
2004-10-31 00:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Many have mentioned how great "vi" is.
Is this the same VI that isn't even quite full screen editor and requires you
type in special key sequence to let you type text on a line otherwise all your
keystrokes are interpreted as commands ?
Are you thinking of EDT v1.0?? Or do you just mean that the thought of
a modal editor are offensive to you :-)

A modal editor has advantages of allowing you to keep your fingers on
the main keyboard (if you want), and not need to revert to using a mouse
or moving your hands over the arrow keys or the keypad and back again
with the lost of time it takes to re-position your hands.

It means instead of having just the limited number of keypad keys as
command keys, you have the entire lowercase and uppercase alphabet as
well as the number and special characters keys, plus the control keys as
commands (26+26+10+30+26 = 118), not to mention that you can create
multiple key commands so the number of commands all at your finger tips
is rather high, and you can still use the keypad and arrow keys so that
adds even more to the mix.

But there is a cost to having to learn modal editing. You have to learn
the commands (and it can be a steep learning curve), and you have to
enter and exit from insert mode. But then again, you do not live in a
mode-less world. You have to know if you are at the DCL prompt and can
use DCL command line editing, or in EVE and can use EVE editing, or if
you are in a browser and can use the browsers style of editing, etc...
We all live with modes. Introducing a mode to an editor is not so
strange a foreign a concept.

But heck, I do not think anyone is trying to convince anyone here that
they should throw away their "Finger Memory" and switch to a different
religion. I personally would still be using EDT if the company I had
worked for had not started going down hill and I let the my youth take
me to a different company based on my VMS skills, only to have the
company change directions a month after I got there, and go UNIX. I was
400 miles from where I started and I wasn't going back, so I learned vi.
I'm not sorry, but I'm also out out to convert anyone or to "Dis" their
choice of editor. If it gets your job done, that is all that really
matters. It is just a tool. Use it well.
Post by JF Mezei
Does VI have a gui version ?
Yes. gVim. With full Mouse support. You can position the cursor with
the mouse, you can scroll with the mouse (up, down, left, right), you
can resize the main window with the mouse, if you split the window to
have multiple views of the same file or multiple files, you can resize
the sub-windows with the mouse, you can select text with the mouse. You
can even put gvim into an always in insert mode and do everything via
the mouse and menu items, and if you want you can program the function
keys to do everything that you do not want to to via the menu and mouse.

And gvimdiff a GUI visual side-by-side differences with full editor
based navagation commands to jump to each change, plus since you are in
an editor, you can made additional changes based on what you see as the
current diff's. Personally this is one of my greatest joys using Vim.
I've even got long time Emacs users using it as a differences tool
because it is so good at what it does (they still use Emacs for editing).

Bob Harris
David J Dachtera
2004-10-31 03:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
Post by JF Mezei
Many have mentioned how great "vi" is.
Is this the same VI that isn't even quite full screen editor and requires you
type in special key sequence to let you type text on a line otherwise all your
keystrokes are interpreted as commands ?
Are you thinking of EDT v1.0?? Or do you just mean that the thought of
a modal editor are offensive to you :-)
Well, I recall going to some great lengths to write a .exrc that gave vi
some EDT-like capabilities (select ranges, and some other familiar
concepts).

These were still the days before WhineBloze became dominant and before
remote X sessions were ecomonically feasible.
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Bob Koehler
2004-11-01 13:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Many have mentioned how great "vi" is.
I was introduced to vi as the UNIX (sub)standard full screen editor.
Post by JF Mezei
Is this the same VI that isn't even quite full screen editor and requires you
type in special key sequence to let you type text on a line otherwise all your
keystrokes are interpreted as commands ?
One of the most obvious issues with the viapproach to editing is that
insertion of a single character requires three keystrokes. But
people who don't know better don't know better.
Bob Harris
2004-11-01 18:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by JF Mezei
Many have mentioned how great "vi" is.
I was introduced to vi as the UNIX (sub)standard full screen editor.
Post by JF Mezei
Is this the same VI that isn't even quite full screen editor and requires you
type in special key sequence to let you type text on a line otherwise all your
keystrokes are interpreted as commands ?
One of the most obvious issues with the viapproach to editing is that
insertion of a single character requires three keystrokes. But
people who don't know better don't know better.
I do know better :-) I still use TPU/EVE several times a week, and Vim
several hours a day. Besides, I'm not entering a single character all
the often, and the price is not all that high, as my fingers do 90% of
the work by pure reflex. Again it is that "Finger Memory" thing. All I
think about is entering the character, the fingers do the rest.

But I'm not trying to convert anyone. Why "Dis" me and other vi/Vim
users for preferring our editor of choice?

Bob Harris
Keith Cayemberg
2004-10-30 21:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Post by Nigel Barker
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
If you are perverted enough to want to use it we already have vi available on
VMS as part of the GNV package.
There are also at least a couple of public domain clones of vi.
One of which I recall is called VILE.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Post by Nigel Barker
--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
Here are a few VI and friends URL's...


VI - Corby's vi Bible
http://www.opus1.com/www/vi/index.html

VI LOVERS HOME PAGE
http://thomer.com/vi/vi.html

VILE - OpenVMS Freeware CD v6
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/freeware/freeware60/vile093t/

VILE - TU Delft - HREM
http://nchrem.tnw.tudelft.nl/openvms/software2.html#Ungiflib

VILE - Vi Like Emacs - Thomas E. Dickey
http://dickey.his.com/vile/vile.html

VILE - Vi Like Emacs - Thomas E. Dickey - mirror
http://invisible-island.net/vile/vile.html

Vim - Vi IMproved - freshmeat.net
http://freshmeat.net/projects/vim/?topic_id=63%2C849

VIM - OpenVMS Freeware CD v6
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/freeware/freeware60/vim/

Vim for OpenVMS - Information Page - PolarFox
http://www.polarfox.com/vim/

Vim for OpenVMS - Vim-vms Listserver - PolarHome
http://www.polarhome.com/mailman/listinfo/vim-vms

Vim for OpenVMS (Alpha, VAX executables) - PolarHome
http://www.polarhome.com/vim/?lang=en

Vim.Org
http://www.vim.org/

Vim.Org - Alternate Sourceforge Address
http://vim.sourceforge.net/


Cheers!

Keith Cayemmberg
JF Mezei
2004-10-30 22:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Cayemberg
VI - Corby's vi Bible
http://www.opus1.com/www/vi/index.html
Yep, that is how I had remembered it.

Isn't there some mode where you can move the cursor around and type text
anywhere you want ? Or must you escape to command mode, move cursor, then get
back to input mode ?

I frankly really cannot see how such a 1970s editor would still be "religion"
today. Sounds like it is of the same vintage as TECO.
Bill Gunshannon
2004-10-31 00:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Keith Cayemberg
VI - Corby's vi Bible
http://www.opus1.com/www/vi/index.html
Yep, that is how I had remembered it.
Isn't there some mode where you can move the cursor around and type text
anywhere you want ? Or must you escape to command mode, move cursor, then get
back to input mode ?
Yeah, it's called xedit (or xemacs or any other Xwindows editor).
Post by JF Mezei
I frankly really cannot see how such a 1970s editor would still be "religion"
today. Sounds like it is of the same vintage as TECO.
Never had to access a system from a remote location without a mouse?

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-31 14:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by JF Mezei
I frankly really cannot see how such a 1970s editor would still be "religion"
today. Sounds like it is of the same vintage as TECO.
Never had to access a system from a remote location without a mouse?
And, not all mice are equal. Some laptop mice are darn near unusable
for
real text editing, being just barely acceptable to select different
application
windows.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
bill
-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-31 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by JF Mezei
I frankly really cannot see how such a 1970s editor would still be "religion"
today. Sounds like it is of the same vintage as TECO.
Never had to access a system from a remote location without a mouse?
And, not all mice are equal. Some laptop mice are darn near unusable
for
real text editing, being just barely acceptable to select different
application
windows.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
bill
-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
Bob Harris
2004-10-31 00:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Keith Cayemberg
VI - Corby's vi Bible
http://www.opus1.com/www/vi/index.html
Yep, that is how I had remembered it.
Isn't there some mode where you can move the cursor around and type text
anywhere you want ? Or must you escape to command mode, move cursor, then get
back to input mode ?
Yes you can put Vim into an always in insert mode and use the arrow keys
to move the cursor around, or program function keys to do more larger
jumps than an arrow keys worth.

gvim will allow you to do a great deal of navigation via the mouse.
Cursor positioning, scrolling, text selection, etc...
Post by JF Mezei
I frankly really cannot see how such a 1970s editor would still be "religion"
today. Sounds like it is of the same vintage as TECO.
I would be careful how you phrase that. EDT's origins were 1980'ish. I
remember using a field test version in October of 1979, and EDT 1.0 was
very much a modal editor where what you typed went on the bottom line of
the screen and was not a "WYSIWYG" editor. TPU/EVE is from around
1984'ish. That is 20'ish years ago and most likely just a few year
younger than vi. TECO spawned Emacs, although Emacs today is not based
on TECO, but Emacs uses Lisp as its programming language and that is one
of the older programming languages out there :-)

The original vi really has not changed much from when it was first
created by Bill Joy, but it was a very powerful programming editor and
it still is. If you know vi, and it is text you have to edit, a vi user
can fly. And the vi emulators that have come along, especially Vim,
have increased the power and flexibility of vi a huge amount.

And it is mostly a "Religion" because of "Finger Memory". We all prefer
the editor we know best. We change only because we are forced to
(changing jobs, old editor no longer available, etc...), or because we
feel a need. Some people may actually change just for the spirt of
adventure, but there are not many of them.

An editor is just a tool to help you do something else (generally that
something else is what they are paying you to do :-) As long as your
editor lets you keep that paycheck coming in, you are more than happy to
keep using it. I am :-)

Bob Harris
JF Mezei
2004-10-31 01:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
And it is mostly a "Religion" because of "Finger Memory". We all prefer
the editor we know best. We change only because we are forced to
(changing jobs, old editor no longer available, etc...),
Yes, but there is such a huge productivity difference between line mode
editors (and their glorified versions such as vi) and full screen and gui editors.

With Vi, you need to type an escape, then some command you wish to be done,
and then choose the command to put you back into text mode in the right mode.

With TPU, I type one key and continue typing.

I started off with line editors on decwriters on 300bps accoustic couplers. I
saw full screen editors on 3270 terminals and that made me realise how pityful
line editors (and the BASIC editors on commodore pets and apple II machines) were.

I had a lot of trouble adjusting to insert-mode editors when I moved to the
MAC and found them to be rather lacking for editing programs. (lots of
switching between mouse and keyboard). When I moved to VMS, I found TPU/EVE to
be a great mix of editing functions, with both insert and replace mode
available and definitely more programming oriented than text oriented.

And when I moved to the GUI version of TPU, I added productivity tools and
didn't lose anything.

I consider my editor "life" to have been a constant evolution. Moving to vi
wouldn't be an evolution, it woudl be going back.
Bob Harris
2004-10-31 03:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Bob Harris
And it is mostly a "Religion" because of "Finger Memory". We all prefer
the editor we know best. We change only because we are forced to
(changing jobs, old editor no longer available, etc...),
Yes, but there is such a huge productivity difference between line mode
editors (and their glorified versions such as vi) and full screen and gui editors.
vi is _NOT_ a line mode editor! Period. I know a line mode editors. I
have used them, on ASR-33 Teletypes. I've used them on IBM's TSO. I've
used SOS, I've used ed, I've used ex, I've used EDT line mode dialed in
via a TI-700 luggable terminal. I've used real line mode editors on
lots of systems. I do know the difference between a screen editor and a
line mode editor, and vi is most definitely _NOT_ a line mode editor.
Post by JF Mezei
With Vi, you need to type an escape,
So? I can also program any key I want to be the mode switching key. On
my Tru64 UNIX workstation, I use F9 (mostly because on the current
keyboard it is the same place as F11 on the 201 keyboard :-), but if i
want I can have any other key or dozen keys be the mode switch from
insert mode to command mode. So what? With a keypad based editor I
have to move my hand to the keypad to move the cursor, to cut and paste,
to do a text fill (OK, I can do Control/B type FILL Carriage Return,
which only means I've used TPU/EVE and I do know something about EVE)
Post by JF Mezei
then some command you wish to be done,
and then choose the command to put you back into text mode in the right mode.
You mean like select text, cut, copy, paste, move my cursor by a
character, word, end of word, line, beginning of line, end of line, half
screen, full screen, beginning of file, end of file, jump to the
beginning of the current function, enter a new variable declaration,
jump back to where you were came from, find the matching {} [] () #if
#elif #else #endif, search for text, search for next, search for
previous, select the word under the cursor as the search string, use the
word under the cursor to search the tags (or cscope) database and jump
to the source file with the definition of the function, structure,
variable, pop the tags stack and return to the place where you came
from, lookup the 'man page' for the function under the cursor, indent a
line by a shift width, unindent a line by one shift width, or a range of
lines, especially shifting entire if {...} range, or select a range and
reformat the indentation of the selected range, spell check, delete a
character, word, line, range of lines, lines between {...}, to beginning
of file, to end of file, to end of paragraph, to the searched for
string, do paragraph fill, paragraph filling on C source comments
maintaining proper C comment style, switch to a different window in a
split screen setup, switch to a different file when editing multiple
files, or back, set a mark or several marks that you can quickly return
to, etc...

You mean like one of those commands? Most of which only require I hit a
single key.

How is that different from moving your hand to the function keys,
hitting a single key, or hitting the DO key (or Control/B) and typing a
command?

And going back into insert mode can be hitting one of these keys: a, A,
c, C, i, I, o, O, R, s, S, each of which does a different function on
its way to insert mode.

How is this different from returning your command from the function keys
back to the main keyboard, and making sure your right index finger is
back on the 'j' key so when you type text it makes sense? Remember, in
vi/Vim my right hand has not left the keyboard and my index finger has
always been over the 'j' key (actually I find that my pinky finger is
most often the anchor finger, but when it has to move some other finger
is the anchor, but my right hand is always over the home keys).
Post by JF Mezei
With TPU, I type one key and continue typing
Sure after moving your hand. When I took physic I learned that the more
mass you need to accelerate and then stop and then reaccelerate and stop
again, the more energy was needed. You are moving your entire hand and
lower arm to get to that function keypad, and back again. I'm just
moving my fingers. Much less mass. So I'm being energy efficient, and
you are wasting the national resources to fuel your arm :-)

Also you assume that you only ever hit one key and then are back to
entering text. I spend a lot of time using the editor to review code,
looking to understand the code before making a modification, so I spend
a lot of time navigating around the sources. When I'm typing text I'm
not jumping in and out of insert mode every other character or even
every other word. And because when I do jump in and out, I've still
kept my hand in place, so while I may type escape (or alternate),
navigate operation, back into insert, I can do it very quickly because
my fingers are right there.
Post by JF Mezei
I started off with line editors on decwriters on 300bps accoustic couplers. I
saw full screen editors on 3270 terminals and that made me realise how pityful
line editors (and the BASIC editors on commodore pets and apple II machines) were.
And so did I. Plus I've used EDT (5 years solid), EVE/TPU (still do at
least 4 or 5 times a week), I've used a TPU emulation of vi on OpenVMS
(6 years) and I did extensive modifications to the emulation in TPU, and
vi/Vim heavy duty for 12 years (18 if you count the time emulating in
TPU on OpenVMS). I do have first hand experience with all many of the
editors you mention, and I can say that vi (and Vim) are most definitely
_NOT_ line mode editors, and never were.

vi/Vim are just modal editors. The only difference between EVE/TPU and
vi is where the command keys are located on the keyboard. I have 118
function keys. You have about 23 function key and 4 arrow keys (I have
both sets too), and some of the F-number keys (those that are not
predefined by DECwindows that is; and I can use them too).
Post by JF Mezei
I had a lot of trouble adjusting to insert-mode editors when I moved to the
MAC and found them to be rather lacking for editing programs. (lots of
Mac (MAC is an networking term :-)
Post by JF Mezei
switching between mouse and keyboard).
Yea, I do not really like a mouse based editor. In fact heavy mousing
actually causes pain in my over used wrists. The touch pad on my Mac
iBook is marginally better, but just marginally and only for minor
mousing.

If I have to do heavy duty editing on my Mac, I will import the text
into vi (which is actually Vim on Mac OS X 10.3) and do all the heavy
lifting in vi/Vim, when done join all the lines of each paragraph into
one long line and then import it into AppleWorks or Word and do any last
minute font type formatting before printing or sending the document.

As far as I know you can't do that with TPU/EVE. But if you are not
doing cross platform editing, then that doesn't matter, or if you only
do minor editing on other platforms, you can live with whatever editor
the other platform offers.
Post by JF Mezei
When I moved to VMS, I found TPU/EVE to
be a great mix of editing functions, with both insert and replace mode
available and definitely more programming oriented than text oriented.
I had VMS EDT access (1979-1985) before my first Mac and I loved EDT,
and was using vi for 3 years before I got my first Mac II in 1988.
Never really like using the Word processors for programming on the Mac
until I found a port of Vim for the Mac. Always felt the text editors
like BBEdit were just not powerful enough after using vi.

I found that vi was a natural as a programming editor. I had to do some
work to learn how to make it also a good text editor for writing specs
and such (that was how I learned how to use all the power features of
vi). Vim makes that job even easier and with better tags/cscope
support, syntax highlighting, side-by-side visual differences, Vim is a
fantastic programming editor.
Post by JF Mezei
And when I moved to the GUI version of TPU, I added productivity tools and
didn't lose anything.
Moving to Vim from vi did the same for me.
Post by JF Mezei
I consider my editor "life" to have been a constant evolution. Moving to vi
wouldn't be an evolution, it woudl be going back.
No one is asking you to move to vi. Your "Finger Memory" is TPU/EVE. I
might still be using EDT if my job change hadn't removed that as an
option for me. Maybe I might have switched to TPU/EVE and customized
the heck out of it. But vi came into my life first, and I found I liked
it.

Switching to vi/Vim would be a royal pain in the butt. Your "Finger
Memory" would fight you every stop of the way. You would be torn
between trying to learn how to do it better in vi/Vim, and accomplishing
the tasks your boss wants you to do. You would want some productivity
feature in vi/Vim to work the way your TPU/EVE feature worked, but it
would be different and the difference would annoy you. You would spend
a lot of time trying to program the function keys to do what you had in
TPU/EVE and find that you could only get 80% of the way there without
doing some serious customization that you don't have time to do.

But if you did learn it (and there are books to help with that), then I
think you would find that you would just find it different, and just as
powerful as TPU/EVE. Not a step backwards, just a different way to look
at the same problem (editing text and program source).

Although if you had no choice but to use vi, then choose Vim. Vim in
compatibility mode is often the vi editor on most Linux distributions as
well as Mac OS X. It is only commercial OS's like Sun, Tru64, HP-UX,
that seem to still ship the original vi and not Vim.

Bob Harris
Keith Cayemberg
2004-10-31 11:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Bob Harris wrote:

[SNIP]
Post by Bob Harris
Although if you had no choice but to use vi, then choose Vim. Vim in
compatibility mode is often the vi editor on most Linux distributions as
well as Mac OS X. It is only commercial OS's like Sun, Tru64, HP-UX,
that seem to still ship the original vi and not Vim.
Bob Harris
How well do the VI/VIM/VILE Editors when used on VMS support the various
default and "typical" file formats for code, data and text, as generated
or required from native VMS tools?

I really don't intend this to be a huge open-ended question demanding a
detailed discourse of potential contexts and conditions. I'm just asking
for your day-to-day experience within your own context. I suspect a
detailed answer would make a good start for a new dp book offering to be
placed next to those from Wisniewski and Winston. :-)

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-31 13:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Cayemberg
How well do the VI/VIM/VILE Editors when used on VMS support the various
default and "typical" file formats for code, data and text, as
generated
Post by Keith Cayemberg
or required from native VMS tools?
VILE does a reasonable job, AFAICT, for most VMS text file formats,
reading them and presenting them as reasonable text and creating a
new verision with the same attributes.

There is a problem with writing 4-byte header VFC files. I've been
meaning to looking at this problem for years, but never got around
to it.

-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
Bob Koehler
2004-11-01 13:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
vi is _NOT_ a line mode editor! Period. I know a line mode editors. I
have used them, on ASR-33 Teletypes. I've used them on IBM's TSO. I've
used SOS, I've used ed, I've used ex, I've used EDT line mode dialed in
via a TI-700 luggable terminal. I've used real line mode editors on
lots of systems. I do know the difference between a screen editor and a
line mode editor, and vi is most definitely _NOT_ a line mode editor.
Sure, that's why you have to :<enter some ed command> to get anything
done.
Bob Harris
2004-11-01 18:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bob Harris
vi is _NOT_ a line mode editor! Period. I know a line mode editors. I
have used them, on ASR-33 Teletypes. I've used them on IBM's TSO. I've
used SOS, I've used ed, I've used ex, I've used EDT line mode dialed in
via a TI-700 luggable terminal. I've used real line mode editors on
lots of systems. I do know the difference between a screen editor and a
line mode editor, and vi is most definitely _NOT_ a line mode editor.
Sure, that's why you have to :<enter some ed command> to get anything
done.
I hardly drop into :<enter some _EX_ command> mode. No more than a
TPU/EVE user might perform <DO>some TPU/EVE command><RETURN> to get some
things done.

With 118 potential commands on the main keyboard, I don't really need to
go into :ex mode all that often. The ones I still use a fair amount are
some global search and replace operations, and a few others. If I need
to do something a lot, I either bind it directly to a key or key combo,
or write a script and bind that to a key.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to convert anyone. "Finger Memory"
is a strong force and not something I really want to mess with. And I'm
not saying anything bad about TPU/EVE or other editors. I am only
saying I prefer vi/Vim as my editor.

Bob Harris
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-31 14:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
With Vi, you need to type an escape, then some command you wish to be done,
and then choose the command to put you back into text mode in the right mode.
With TPU, I type one key and continue typing.
Yes, but reaching for the escape to switch modes is much the same as
reaching for the keypads or mouse to move around.

In fact, I think that if you watch people using an editor, they type a
lot
and then they move around/delete cut/paste alot. Editing is modal and
vi fits this.

With vi, I'm more flexible than with editors that depend on keypad
layouts. I'm immediately productive when using laptops or Sun
Workstations or whatever. All I have to find and get used to is
where the control key and escape are.

With vi, I can quickly move around using simple, mnemonic navigation
keys,
like 'w' for word forward and 'b' for word back, and apply these same
navigation keys as modifiers to delete 'dw' and change 'cw' operations.

I can use the find operator to find a character in the current line
'f<char>' and apply that as a motion modifier to a delete 'd' or
chane 'c' operation. For example, If I want to delete the next
two words, it's just 2dw, if I want to delete everything up to the the
comma it's 'df,' I can apply the count to that and delete everthing up
to the next two commas '2df. If I wanted to change the text up to the
next comma, it's just 'cf,'.

Show me another editor that's actually so conservative in keystrokes
with these common operations.

With GUI editors, I'm constantly reaching for the mouse, which is quite
a bit further away when compared to the escape key, to perform
navigation.

-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
j***@gmail.com
2004-10-31 14:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
With Vi, you need to type an escape, then some command you wish to be done,
and then choose the command to put you back into text mode in the right mode.
With TPU, I type one key and continue typing.
Yes, but reaching for the escape to switch modes is much the same as
reaching for the keypads or mouse to move around.

In fact, I think that if you watch people using an editor, they type a
lot and then they
move around/delete cut/paste alot. Editing is modal and vi fits this.

With vi, I'm more flexible than with editors that depend on keypad
layouts. I'm
immediately productive when using laptops or Sun Workstations or
whatever. All
I have to find and get used to is where the control key is.

With vi, I can quickly move around using simple, mnemonic navigation
keys, like
'w' for word forward and 'b' for word back, and apply these same
navigation
keys as modifiers to delete 'dw' and change 'cw' operations. I can
use the
find operator to find a character in the current line 'f<char>' and
apply that as
a motion modifier to a delete 'd' or substitute 's' operation. For
example,
If I want to delete the next two words, it's just 2dw, if I want to
delete everything
up to the the comma it's 'df,' I can apply the count to that and delete
everthing up
to the next two commas '2df. If I wanted to change the text up to the
next comma,
it's just 'cf,'.

Show me another editor that's actually so conservative in keystrokes
with these
common operations.

With GUI editors, I'm constantly reaching for the mouse, which is quite
a bit further
away when compared to the escape key, to perform navigation.
-Jordan Henderson
***@gmail.com
Bob Koehler
2004-11-01 13:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Keith Cayemberg
VI - Corby's vi Bible
http://www.opus1.com/www/vi/index.html
Yep, that is how I had remembered it.
Isn't there some mode where you can move the cursor around and type text
anywhere you want ? Or must you escape to command mode, move cursor, then get
back to input mode ?
I've worked with several vi that can do that, usually the ones that
recognise the arrow keys, but niether is standard and just last week
I was forced to us hjlk again.

At least I learned why hjkl had arrows on them on our old ADM-3 "the dumb
terminal" back in the late 70's.
Bob Koehler
2004-10-28 12:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
As you know, once upon a time someone actually did that. I
understand there is also a vi mode in emacs, and vim and similar
are portable versions of vi.

Why someone whould want to go to all the work of porting vi instead
of doing a little work to learn EDT, EVE, or even emacs is beyond me.
Bob Harris
2004-10-28 16:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bob Harris
Now personally, if I was in charge of TPU and EVE would be making it
look like vi :-)
As you know, once upon a time someone actually did that. I
understand there is also a vi mode in emacs, and vim and similar
are portable versions of vi.
Why someone whould want to go to all the work of porting vi instead
of doing a little work to learn EDT, EVE, or even emacs is beyond me.
Totally off topic, but what the heck :-)

Editors are a religion. If you belong to one faith, you don't want to
convert. Or to be more accurate, it is all about "Finger Memory".
People do not like to retrain their fingers.

History. I started out with Punched paper-tape and 80 column punched
cards (so much fun when the operators dropped your deck; I also wrote
diagnostic programs for card reader/punch machines :-). Used various
line mode editors in my early days. Use ROSCO screen editing
environment on an IBM system.

Eventually, I got on a VAX/VMS system and used EDT v2.0 and even field
tested EDT v3.0 (all of this before there was TPU and EVE). And I was a
master of EDT. I loved it. I had a custom keypad and could do editing
using the underlying EDT primitives.

About the time TPU and EVE were being released, I changed companies and
my choices were vi or TECO (and not a very good TECO implementation at
that). Sedt and Emacs were not an option on a PDP-11 running UNIX in
1985. I choose vi, and over time I became a master of using vi.

3 years later when I returned to an OpenVMS system (1988'ish), TPU and
EVE were new to me, plus I had finger memory for vi. As for going back
to EDT I knew from 5 years of being a power EDT users and 3 years of
being a power vi user that vi was more powerful and useful to me. I
tried to get into TPU and EVE, but my finger memory was just too strong,
and the learning curve to becoming a power TPU/EVE user was too steep vs
what I knew how to do with vi, and my bosses were not paying me to
fumble around learning a new (to me) editor.

So I hunted around and found several vi emulators that ran on OpenVMS.
The best was actually a TPU implementation by Gregg Wonderly, at
Oklahoma State University. I used and tweaked that TPU code for about 6
years, until I again changed jobs and started working on a Tru64 UNIX
system.

I was back to vi (1995'ish). I stayed with vi for about 6 more years,
until I found and read the book "Vi IMproved - Vim", by Steve Oualline,
and switched over to Vim (syntax coloring, easier to customize, more
keys are remappable, integrates with cscope source code cataloging for
easy tags lookup, visual side by side differences complete with syntax
coloring and all the power of an editor while doing code reviews), and
have been using that on Tru64 UNIX, HP-UX, and Mac OS X for the past 3
years.

So back to finger memory, I have been able to keep my same finger memory
for 19 years across 3 different companies, and 5 operating systems. And
with Vim being portable to just about everything, I can most likely keep
that memory forever :-)

That is why I personally, stay with vi or its emulations even when I
have TPU and EVE available to me.

It is strictly a personal choice that makes me personally more
productive to my employer.

Bob Harris
Tom Linden
2004-10-28 16:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
About the time TPU and EVE were being released, I changed companies and
my choices were vi or TECO (and not a very good TECO implementation at
that). Sedt and Emacs were not an option on a PDP-11 running UNIX in
1985. I choose vi, and over time I became a master of using vi.
You sure about that? I had emacs on both Primos and VAX/BSD Unix
never had a PDP ll. Unix on PDP-11 wouldn't that have been BSD?
Gosling's emacs was certainly available.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Bob Harris
2004-10-28 20:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Linden
Post by Bob Harris
About the time TPU and EVE were being released, I changed companies and
my choices were vi or TECO (and not a very good TECO implementation at
that). Sedt and Emacs were not an option on a PDP-11 running UNIX in
1985. I choose vi, and over time I became a master of using vi.
You sure about that? I had emacs on both Primos and VAX/BSD Unix
never had a PDP ll. Unix on PDP-11 wouldn't that have been BSD?
Gosling's emacs was certainly available.
It was System V.2. And at the time Emacs would not fit into 64K of code
and 56K of date space (8K for stack), at least that is my memory of the
situation when someone did introduce me to Emacs. Later when we got a
VAX-11/750 we did manage to get Emacs compiled and running (a new hire
wanted it, and provided the source tape), but the Emacs source code
would never compile and run on the PDP-11's (he tried).

Besides, at the time vi was already there, and I did not have an Emacs
habit I needed to maintain. If I had been an Emacs user, I would have
most likely dug around to find an Emacs editor that would run on a
PDP-11 running System V.2

vi is very basic, and to get any power out of it, you really need to
learn how to do key mapping, and how to pipe sections of text to
external utilities (like paragraph reformatting, spell checking, line
centering utilities, etc...). The right key mapping can make this
easier to do, but until you inherit a .exrc file of useful keymaps or
learn to do it yourself, vi is not as easy to start using as say
TPU/EVE, Emacs, etc...

With the right knowledge, and a set of pipe utilities, and a good set of
keymapping, vi is a powerful source code editor and it can do a very
good job of writing ascii text (I use it all the time for emails and
design specs).

However, now that I use Vim, I do not really want to go back to vi, as
Vim "Kicks it up a Notch" so to speak. With Vim I may not have the
"Operating System called Emacs", but most of the stuff that made Emacs
attractive to me, I now have in Vim. And I've got my Vim environment
"Tricked Out" really nice.

But vi and Vim are not for everyone, especially if you have "Finger
Memory" for another editor, or a nice toolkit for another editor. No
problem. I'm not trying to convert anyone, especially an OpenVMS user.
But from first hand experience, I do understand why someone may want to
have a vi emulator, or Vim available to them on an OpenVMS system.

Bob Harris
Marty O'Connor
2004-10-29 15:02:15 UTC
Permalink
"Bob Harris" <***@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message news:harris-***@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...
: In article <***@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <***@kednos.com>
: wrote:
:
: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:40:20 GMT, Bob Harris <***@zk3.dec.com> wrote:
: >
: Eventually, I got on a VAX/VMS system and used EDT v2.0 and even field
: tested EDT v3.0 (all of this before there was TPU and EVE). And I was a
: master of EDT. I loved it. I had a custom keypad and could do editing
: using the underlying EDT primitives.
:
:
: But vi and Vim are not for everyone, especially if you have "Finger
: Memory" for another editor, or a nice toolkit for another editor. No
: problem. I'm not trying to convert anyone, especially an OpenVMS user.
: But from first hand experience, I do understand why someone may want to
: have a vi emulator, or Vim available to them on an OpenVMS system.
:
: Bob Harris

I know what you mean about finger memory. I learned EDT at the same time (and same company) and have
literally been using EDT and/or EDT mapings in TPU/EVE for the last 25 years. In the early 90's I
had to do some work on UNIX and had to use vi and never really had enough time to lear and taylor
the environment. My finger memory is EDT and I guess it will always be.

Marty O'Connor
Mike Rechtman
2004-10-29 15:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty O'Connor
: >
: Eventually, I got on a VAX/VMS system and used EDT v2.0 and even field
: tested EDT v3.0 (all of this before there was TPU and EVE). And I was a
: master of EDT. I loved it. I had a custom keypad and could do editing
: using the underlying EDT primitives.
: But vi and Vim are not for everyone, especially if you have "Finger
: Memory" for another editor, or a nice toolkit for another editor. No
: problem. I'm not trying to convert anyone, especially an OpenVMS user.
: But from first hand experience, I do understand why someone may want to
: have a vi emulator, or Vim available to them on an OpenVMS system.
: Bob Harris
I know what you mean about finger memory. I learned EDT at the same time (and same company) and have
literally been using EDT and/or EDT mapings in TPU/EVE for the last 25 years. In the early 90's I
had to do some work on UNIX and had to use vi and never really had enough time to lear and taylor
the environment. My finger memory is EDT and I guess it will always be.
Marty O'Connor
When EDT first came out I remember being pried off KED (RSTS on a PDP
11/70) with a crowbar. Since then I have carried the same EDTINI file
(now translated to TPUINI) through half-a-dozen jobs/companies and
probably a hundred machines. I can't even use a keyboard with different
key spacing... Talk about finger memory!

Mike
--
New to Usenet? read http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~rechtman/post_hlp.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Usual disclaimer: All opinions are mine alone, perhaps not even that.
Mike Rechtman ****@tzora.co.il*
"20% of a job takes 80% of the time, the rest takes another 80%"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
leslie
2004-10-31 06:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Marty O'Connor (***@dvfs.com) wrote:
:
: I know what you mean about finger memory. I learned EDT at the same time
: (and same company) and have literally been using EDT and/or EDT mapings
: in TPU/EVE for the last 25 years. In the early 90's I had to do some work
: on UNIX and had to use vi and never really had enough time to lear and
: taylor the environment. My finger memory is EDT and I guess it will always
: be.
:

Two people at Rice University, Charles Sandmann and Rush Record, developed
an EDT look-alike editor they named ED, which runs on VMS, OS/2, MS-DOS,
Windows from a DOS window, and every dialect of unix they could gain access
to.

http://clio.rice.edu/EDstuff/ED_Overview.txt

"...ABOUT ED

ED is an EDT look-alike editor that is portable to many platforms. If you
use EMACS, you'll probably hate it, but it does have some nice features.

ED will:

o Let you edit files on other hosts, if you are connected to the Internet.
o Display many files on the screen simultaneously.
o Save key definitions and other editor settings on command.
o Let you mark your spot in a file, and return to it easily.
o Let you put tab stops wherever you want them.
o Let you use wildcards in search strings.
o Let you redefine the keys on your terminal.
o Let you say things like: ED *.dat, if you want to edit all .dat files.
o Allow you to teach it how to talk to different terminals.
o Calculate the value of algebraic expressions that include math
functions.
o Sort a file or a portion of a file.
o Let you read the network news.

ED is free software, see the file COPYING for details.

ED is available from

ftp://clio.rice.edu/pub/

If you need a particular binary version and don't have a compiler to build
it - send me a note. I've got access to a wide range of systems..."

The internal ftp client feature that reads:

"Let you edit files on other hosts, if you are connected to the Internet."

really means:

"Let you edit files on other hosts, if you are connected to a network"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: ***@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Keith Cayemberg
2004-10-31 10:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by leslie
: I know what you mean about finger memory. I learned EDT at the same time
: (and same company) and have literally been using EDT and/or EDT mapings
: in TPU/EVE for the last 25 years. In the early 90's I had to do some work
: on UNIX and had to use vi and never really had enough time to lear and
: taylor the environment. My finger memory is EDT and I guess it will always
: be.
Two people at Rice University, Charles Sandmann and Rush Record, developed
an EDT look-alike editor they named ED, which runs on VMS, OS/2, MS-DOS,
Windows from a DOS window, and every dialect of unix they could gain access
to.
http://clio.rice.edu/EDstuff/ED_Overview.txt
"...ABOUT ED
ED is an EDT look-alike editor that is portable to many platforms. If you
use EMACS, you'll probably hate it, but it does have some nice features.
[SNIP]
Post by leslie
"Let you edit files on other hosts, if you are connected to a network"
--Jerry Leslie
SEDT is also available for various platforms including Unix.
http://users.rcn.com/anker/sedt/sedt.htm

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg
Bob Koehler
2004-10-29 13:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harris
Totally off topic, but what the heck :-)
Editors are a religion. If you belong to one faith, you don't want to
convert. Or to be more accurate, it is all about "Finger Memory".
People do not like to retrain their fingers.
Yes, I know. I work with a fellow who's a "true believer" in emacs.
He simply ignores the little problems he agrees it has. And I can
recall working on folks to get them to convert from
compatability-mode SOS to native-mode EDT on out 11/780 (much CPU
time was consumed by compatability mode for that one purpose, EDT
was much less of a hog). When they got there, it was "thats so
easy".
Post by Bob Harris
3 years later when I returned to an OpenVMS system (1988'ish), TPU and
EVE were new to me, plus I had finger memory for vi. As for going back
to EDT I knew from 5 years of being a power EDT users and 3 years of
being a power vi user that vi was more powerful and useful to me. I
tried to get into TPU and EVE, but my finger memory was just too strong,
and the learning curve to becoming a power TPU/EVE user was too steep vs
what I knew how to do with vi, and my bosses were not paying me to
fumble around learning a new (to me) editor.
I've found with a little practive I can have EVE, vi, and emacs sessions
open on the same X server at the same time and switch between them. Yes,
it takes a little practice.

Of course, I've been with my own EVE keypad for about 20 years now,
and I won't give up my LK401 keyboard for a remapped PC or Mac,
even though it means ^[ to generate escape every time I get into
vi or TECO. (I like ~` and <> where they are).
Keith Cayemberg
2004-10-29 15:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Bob Koehler wrote:

<SNIP>
Post by Bob Koehler
Yes, I know. I work with a fellow who's a "true believer" in emacs.
He simply ignores the little problems he agrees it has. And I can
recall working on folks to get them to convert from
compatability-mode SOS to native-mode EDT on out 11/780 (much CPU
time was consumed by compatability mode for that one purpose, EDT
was much less of a hog). When they got there, it was "thats so
easy".
<SNIP>

Ah! Son-Of-Stopgap, I wonder if I still have some "finger memory" for
SOS after all these years. Or does one need an App with dedicated
function keys for finger memory to set in? Maybe I'll install TOPS-10
on top of SIMH some day and find out. :-)

After using SOS on DECwriters a couple years, EDT was quite a step
forward! I'm quite happy to have been spared the Hollerith-Based editing
systems.

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/SOS

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg
John Powers
2004-10-28 09:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Although there is validity in this point in general, I don't like it in
this particular case. There is the converse argument to this point.
Including loads of extra bells and whistles, in order to add every
possible add-on, to give features that maybe one customer in a thousand
will want to use once every 2 years, to save a few seconds going the
long way, - this runs the risk bloating up the software like an
oversized blimp, in Micros**t style.

In the real world, how many people would use this feature sufficiently
often to make it worth-while for Dec to include it? One of the best
features of EVE, is its extendablity. Being written in TPU with fully
open source, you can add on the code to do this yourself, if you decide
you would want to use it a lot.

And your example here is exceptionally easy. I wrote the following piece
of code to do what you want in less then 3 minutes (literally - I used
a stopwatch!)

procedure eve_revert

local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
delete (current_buffer);
eve_get (the_file);

endprocedure;

If you use this regularly, you can extend eve and save the extended
section, and it is there for you for ever. And other sites who never
want this won't have it filling up their TPU sections - so everybody is
happy!

One additional point here. I don't like the name 'revert', I think you
need a better verb. One of the (IMO) really good features of the EVE
commands, is that they adhered to the unofficial (undocumented?)
standard used in DCL of ensuring that all command verbs are uniquely
defined by their first 4 letters, so you can abbreviate them. REVERT, is
going to clash with REVERSE (the command attached to the edt-kp5 command
to set the normal direction to reverse).

Cheers, John
JF Mezei
2004-10-28 11:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Powers
Including loads of extra bells and whistles, in order to add every
possible add-on, to give features that maybe one customer in a thousand
will want to use once every 2 years,
The thing is that REVERT is pretty standard across all modern platforms in so
many applications which are file based (text/graphic editors for instance).
Post by John Powers
One additional point here. I don't like the name 'revert',
Well, for the command line, it could be anything. but as a menu item in the
decwindows version is should be "revert" in order to abide to established gui
standards across platforms.
David J Dachtera
2004-10-30 18:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Powers
Including loads of extra bells and whistles, in order to add every
possible add-on, to give features that maybe one customer in a thousand
will want to use once every 2 years,
The thing is that REVERT is pretty standard across all modern platforms in so
many applications which are file based (text/graphic editors for instance).
Post by John Powers
One additional point here. I don't like the name 'revert',
Well, for the command line, it could be anything. but as a menu item in the
decwindows version is should be "revert" in order to abide to established gui
standards across platforms.
What's wrong with <DO>QUIT<CR>, then cursor up to recall the last
command, hit return again and start over?
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
John Powers
2004-10-29 17:00:40 UTC
Permalink
After a brief off-line discussion with another TPUser, I need
to modify my last entry..

He emailed me saying my code didn't work! I said it did and I
had tested it. He said it didn't and he had tested it..

Further testing showed that whilst it works fine on my heavily
customised, personalised (brutalised) TPU section, it does not
work with the straight-out-of-the-box unaltered EVE$SECTION.

The problem is that the EVE_GET command is very paranoid about
checking if the current window is properly mapped, and if not,
it refuses to work. As we have deleted the current buffer, the
current window is not mapped.

The fix is to use EVE's bad window check procedure entitled
'eve$check_bad_window' after deleting the buffer, and before
re-getting the file. This works always - we are both agreed.


Here is the amended version with the extra line (I still don't
like the name REVERT, but I'll leave that as it is.


procedure eve_revert

local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
delete (current_buffer);
eve$check_bad_window;
eve_get (the_file);

endprocedure;

- Cheers, John
Post by John Powers
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Although there is validity in this point in general, I don't like it in
this particular case. There is the converse argument to this point.
Including loads of extra bells and whistles, in order to add every
possible add-on, to give features that maybe one customer in a thousand
will want to use once every 2 years, to save a few seconds going the
long way, - this runs the risk bloating up the software like an
oversized blimp, in Micros**t style.
In the real world, how many people would use this feature sufficiently
often to make it worth-while for Dec to include it? One of the best
features of EVE, is its extendablity. Being written in TPU with fully
open source, you can add on the code to do this yourself, if you decide
you would want to use it a lot.
And your example here is exceptionally easy. I wrote the following piece
of code to do what you want in less then 3 minutes (literally - I used
a stopwatch!)
procedure eve_revert
local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
delete (current_buffer);
eve_get (the_file);
endprocedure;
If you use this regularly, you can extend eve and save the extended
section, and it is there for you for ever. And other sites who never
want this won't have it filling up their TPU sections - so everybody is
happy!
One additional point here. I don't like the name 'revert', I think you
need a better verb. One of the (IMO) really good features of the EVE
commands, is that they adhered to the unofficial (undocumented?)
standard used in DCL of ensuring that all command verbs are uniquely
defined by their first 4 letters, so you can abbreviate them. REVERT, is
going to clash with REVERSE (the command attached to the edt-kp5 command
to set the normal direction to reverse).
Cheers, John
John Powers
2004-11-01 14:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Sorry I keep replying to my own postings, but I am getting a lot of
good input from some off-line lurkers, that I think ought to be
distributed.

A more elegant solution to my original problem of the unmapped
MAIN window has been offered. Instead of using the raw native TPU
command "delete (current_buffer)", I can use the EVE-supplied
procedure "eve$delete_buffer". This procedure does the work for
you. It ensures that the main window is not left hanging, so you
don't have to mess around with eve$check_bad_window. It also has
another advantage. If the buffer was modified, it will also ask
'are you sure about deleting the buffer' and requires a 'D'
to delete before continuing. You have an opportunity to quit the
revert command if you hit the wrong key, and don't want to lose
all your work!

eve$delete_buffer has a second parameter, value TRUE or FALSE,
meaning "Do you want to update your SHOW buffer?". We don't
care in this case - so, in its 3rd metamorphosis, here is the
final imago for eve_revert..

procedure eve_revert

local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
if eve$delete_buffer (current_buffer, FALSE)
then
eve_get (the_file);
endif;

endprocedure;

- and I hope my contribution to this thread is finally at an
end.

- Cheers, John xx
Post by John Powers
After a brief off-line discussion with another TPUser, I need
to modify my last entry..
He emailed me saying my code didn't work! I said it did and I
had tested it. He said it didn't and he had tested it..
Further testing showed that whilst it works fine on my heavily
customised, personalised (brutalised) TPU section, it does not
work with the straight-out-of-the-box unaltered EVE$SECTION.
The problem is that the EVE_GET command is very paranoid about
checking if the current window is properly mapped, and if not,
it refuses to work. As we have deleted the current buffer, the
current window is not mapped.
The fix is to use EVE's bad window check procedure entitled
'eve$check_bad_window' after deleting the buffer, and before
re-getting the file. This works always - we are both agreed.
Here is the amended version with the extra line (I still don't
like the name REVERT, but I'll leave that as it is.
procedure eve_revert
local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
delete (current_buffer);
eve$check_bad_window;
eve_get (the_file);
endprocedure;
- Cheers, John
Post by John Powers
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Although there is validity in this point in general, I don't like it in
this particular case. There is the converse argument to this point.
Including loads of extra bells and whistles, in order to add every
possible add-on, to give features that maybe one customer in a thousand
will want to use once every 2 years, to save a few seconds going the
long way, - this runs the risk bloating up the software like an
oversized blimp, in Micros**t style.
In the real world, how many people would use this feature sufficiently
often to make it worth-while for Dec to include it? One of the best
features of EVE, is its extendablity. Being written in TPU with fully
open source, you can add on the code to do this yourself, if you decide
you would want to use it a lot.
And your example here is exceptionally easy. I wrote the following piece
of code to do what you want in less then 3 minutes (literally - I used
a stopwatch!)
procedure eve_revert
local the_file;
the_file := get_info(current_buffer,"file_name");
delete (current_buffer);
eve_get (the_file);
endprocedure;
If you use this regularly, you can extend eve and save the extended
section, and it is there for you for ever. And other sites who never
want this won't have it filling up their TPU sections - so everybody is
happy!
One additional point here. I don't like the name 'revert', I think you
need a better verb. One of the (IMO) really good features of the EVE
commands, is that they adhered to the unofficial (undocumented?)
standard used in DCL of ensuring that all command verbs are uniquely
defined by their first 4 letters, so you can abbreviate them. REVERT, is
going to clash with REVERSE (the command attached to the edt-kp5 command
to set the normal direction to reverse).
Cheers, John
Ken Fairfield
2004-10-29 21:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Coming late to the discussion, but being a hard-core TPU advocate...

Please remember that EVE was created as an "example" of an editor
using TPU. For full-featured editing, including multiple "undo"
capability, etc., VMS provides LSE.

For those of us who have a bit of history behind us, :-) if you need
a new feature for EVE, or want to change the behaviour of some function,
you write it and add it. You don't complain that VMS Engineering didn't
do it for you...

Cheers, Ken
--
I don't speak for Intel, Intel doesn't speak for me...

Ken Fairfield
D1C Automation VMS System Support
who: kenneth dot h dot fairfield
where: intel dot com
David J Dachtera
2004-10-30 18:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fairfield
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Coming late to the discussion, but being a hard-core TPU advocate...
Please remember that EVE was created as an "example" of an editor
using TPU. For full-featured editing, including multiple "undo"
capability, etc., VMS provides LSE.
I awlays got a(n angry) kick out of that: here's a programming language
for writing an editor that performs basic editing functions "out of the
box"; want more? YOYO."
Post by Ken Fairfield
For those of us who have a bit of history behind us, :-) if you need
a new feature for EVE, or want to change the behaviour of some function,
you write it and add it. You don't complain that VMS Engineering didn't
do it for you...
Folks are just expecting the VMS world to stay apace of Mickey$lop.
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Marty Kuhrt
2004-11-08 20:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David J Dachtera
Post by Ken Fairfield
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Coming late to the discussion, but being a hard-core TPU advocate...
Please remember that EVE was created as an "example" of an editor
using TPU. For full-featured editing, including multiple "undo"
capability, etc., VMS provides LSE.
I awlays got a(n angry) kick out of that: here's a programming language
for writing an editor that performs basic editing functions "out of the
box"; want more? YOYO."
Post by Ken Fairfield
For those of us who have a bit of history behind us, :-) if you need
a new feature for EVE, or want to change the behaviour of some function,
you write it and add it. You don't complain that VMS Engineering didn't
do it for you...
Folks are just expecting the VMS world to stay apace of Mickey$lop.
It probably wouldn't take too long to create a TPU procedure, or two,
to surreptitiously track all your changes, add gobs of useless HTML
and other WYSIWWGY (what you see is what we give you) chunks, and turn
a three line text file into multiple megabytes. Don't forget to
create an embedded script handler that is installed with full privs so
that opening a "simple text file" can corrupt every user on the system
while you are at it.

Now _THAT'S_ the Mickey$lop way!
(insert grumpy smiley here)
David J Dachtera
2004-11-09 02:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty Kuhrt
Post by David J Dachtera
Post by Ken Fairfield
Post by JF Mezei
Post by John Vottero
TPU is a programming language. EVE is an editor written in TPU. You
probably have the source code for EVE in SYS$EXAMPLES: , take a look at
EVE$FILE.TPU and you can see how GET works and use that as a base for your
own REVERT.
That mentality is what led Linux Torvalds to write his own too.
If we want VMS to succeed, it si the default vanilla VMS that must be
improved. Just adding a sheet of paper that says "here is VMS, now spend mega
hours writing your own basic features that come by defaylt with competing OS"
isn't good enough.
Coming late to the discussion, but being a hard-core TPU advocate...
Please remember that EVE was created as an "example" of an editor
using TPU. For full-featured editing, including multiple "undo"
capability, etc., VMS provides LSE.
I awlays got a(n angry) kick out of that: here's a programming language
for writing an editor that performs basic editing functions "out of the
box"; want more? YOYO."
Post by Ken Fairfield
For those of us who have a bit of history behind us, :-) if you need
a new feature for EVE, or want to change the behaviour of some function,
you write it and add it. You don't complain that VMS Engineering didn't
do it for you...
Folks are just expecting the VMS world to stay apace of Mickey$lop.
It probably wouldn't take too long to create a TPU procedure, or two,
to surreptitiously track all your changes, add gobs of useless HTML
and other WYSIWWGY (what you see is what we give you) chunks, and turn
a three line text file into multiple megabytes. Don't forget to
create an embedded script handler that is installed with full privs so
that opening a "simple text file" can corrupt every user on the system
while you are at it.
Now _THAT'S_ the Mickey$lop way!
(insert grumpy smiley here)
NFS! (...and I don't mean Netwotrk File System!)
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Rob Brown
2004-10-28 16:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
It quicker to quit and then restart editor than deleting all the
text, and including the file again. (recalling the originall GET
command yields a "buffer anme already in use" annoying message).
Meanwhile, my workaround is:

<command> show buffer <cr>
(arrow down to select buffer that you want to revert)
<remove>
<command> (up arrow or <find> the GET command) <cr>

But I might save the tpu procedure previously supplied by another
poster.
--
Rob Brown b r o w n a t g m c l d o t c o m
G. Michaels Consulting Ltd. (866)438-2101 (voice) toll free!
Edmonton (780)438-9343 (voice)
(780)437-3367 (FAX)
http://gmcl.com/
Keith A. Lewis
2004-11-01 15:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
In the event someone is still collecting suggestions for improvements on VMS
applications, adding a REVERT command (and in the decwindows interfacem a
FILE->REVERT menu) would be very welcome.
Just a guess, but my take on why it isn't there is because with version
numbers it could be ambiguous. When a user types <DO>revert, does he mean:

1. Load the same version which was used when the buffer was created
2. Load the last version written with the WRITE command
3. Load the most recent version even if it's from another process
Post by JF Mezei
It quicker to quit and then restart editor than deleting all the text, and
including the file again. (recalling the originall GET command yields a
"buffer anme already in use" annoying message).
The "delete buffer" command might be faster. Then you can re-do the "get".

--Keith Lewis klewis {at} mitre.org
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
David J Dachtera
2004-11-02 04:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith A. Lewis
Post by JF Mezei
In the event someone is still collecting suggestions for improvements on VMS
applications, adding a REVERT command (and in the decwindows interfacem a
FILE->REVERT menu) would be very welcome.
Just a guess, but my take on why it isn't there is because with version
1. Load the same version which was used when the buffer was created
2. Load the last version written with the WRITE command
3. Load the most recent version even if it's from another process
Simple solution: Prompt (ask the question) for it. Next?
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...