There's no reason to use ed. It's a historical novelty at this point. Move on.
Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
11–20 of 125 posts
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#12Is there some operating environment I'm not aware of?
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#13The last edit was in 2014? Who's worried about 2400 baud modems and terminals not having cursor positioning capabilities? It's 2022, not 1992! Is there some operating environment I'm not aware of?
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#14https://www.roug.org/soren/6809/os9sysprog.html
Previous to that I used the TECO editor on a PDP-11
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#15There's no reason to use ed. It's a historical novelty at this point. Move on.
LPMUD's online editor comes with a reasonable implementation of ed. It's actually the only way to edit files in the MUD environment (and as a result, how I learned ed).
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#16The last edit was in 2014? Who's worried about 2400 baud modems and terminals not having cursor positioning capabilities? It's 2022, not 1992! Is there some operating environment I'm not aware of?
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#17?
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#18There's no reason to use ed. It's a historical novelty at this point. Move on.
ed .ssh/config
68d
wq
done, didnt fill my terminal with vim or emacs, didnt tab over to my gui editor then back againalso it's a nicely "semantic"/compact/comprehensible way of expressing patches in things like portfiles or nix expressions:
postPatch = ''
ed Makefile
etc etcsure, using ed as your daily driver code editor in 2022 is probably stupid, but it's still useful enough that any linux distro that excludes it by default irritates me
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#19Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!! TEXT EDITOR.
I love reading C2, but anything in reference to ed(1) besides "Ed, man! !man ed" is wasting my VALUABLE time. :-)
Re: Ed is the standard text editor (2014)
#20There's no reason to use ed. It's a historical novelty at this point. Move on.