Splitting out PMMail

[Steve Lamb]

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

On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuclear Bob wrote:

>	I say keep the internal editor. I like it and I use it. If you
>prefer an external editor, PMMail has already built in _option_ to handle
>that.

    You're missing the point then.  Read the whole thread, please.

>	I have used the various UNIX mail programs for years (10 years
>and counting now). They've usually started an external editor such as vi,
>emacs, pico, etc..
>It's bearable, but do not prefer it. Pine is okay, but only because Pico
>was co-developed alongside it, so the transition to the editor is
>relatively transparent.

    Oddly enough I can't see how you could find the internal editor
preferable.  The 'nix mail programs call the editor that is defined.  So,
now, let's look at this.

'nix model:
I'm programming: vim
Composing a news message: vim
Composing a mail message: vim
Editing configuration files: vim
Artistic writing: vim

Windows model:
Programming: A hacked CUA editor
Composing a news message: A hacked CUA editor
Composing a mail message: A hacked CUA editor
Editing configuration files: Called the "registry" and is better left not
hacked.
Artistic writing: A hacked CUA editor.

    In the Windows model I have to learn how at least 4 *different* editors
work, all of their quirks.  In many cases I need to learn whole new
keystrokes.  In the 'nix model I've learned *one* set of keystrokes that
works in *all* cases.  Furthermore, if I don't like those keystrokes, I make
*one* change and I don't need to switch depending on which application I'm
in.

>	I also use Outlook98 at work, which can use Word as the external
>editor.

    Which is a case of how not to do external editors.  I'm advocating the
use of something like vim, joe, or other small, fast, powerful but not
bloated editor.

>Also, last time I installed Linux, which was not too long ago, the size of
>emacs alone outweighed the complete install of PMMail/2, vi was no
>lightweight either. (Ditto, I suspect for EPM). I for one would NOT upgrade
>to a version that had the internal editor removed.

    First off Emacs is not an editor.  Secondly, vi is a lightweight. 
- -r-xr-xr-x   5 bin      bin       236328 May  2  1996 /bin/vi

    Not that I would advocate vi.  Joe yes.  Vim, yes.  Vi, no.

>	Aside from personal preference, there is also the issue of
>communicating properly with the external editor. If there's a bug, where do
>you point the finger? Southsoft? Or the editor programmers?

    You know, people keep bringing this up.  I don't see it as an issue.  I
mean the 'nix crowd has been doing it for almost 20 years now and don't seem
to have this problem.  Communicating properly with the external editor.  How
hard is:
vim ext.bod

   ...to fuck up?  Jeez.


- -- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBN3qyuXpf7K2LbpnFEQKnJQCgy4bZOpokRElBytKDKDfs5hhLKtQAoNva
b/OfBt+kXu1qL5TtL6G3AV49
=CdFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----