On 6/7/2023 8:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2023-06-08 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/7/2023 5:36 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-07 11:09, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>> I must ask (since I have never used TECO).
>>>>
>>>> What is the unique feature of TECO that cannot be done
>>>> with some other tool(s)?
>>>
>>> I don't think there is anything that is that unique.
>>> However, depending on how you use it, you might need a bunch of other
>>> tools to accomplish the same.
>>>
>>> It obviously is an editor. But it's also a programming language that
>>> can be twisted into doing a lot of stuff. If you are familiar with
>>> sed (a Unix tool), it is somewhat similar. But I'd say TECO can do
>>> more. Obviously the original Emacs was written in TECO. There are
>>> other editors written in TECO as well. I sometimes use it when I want
>>> to do somewhat more complex operations over larger text files where
>>> the changes are a bit more complex than just search and replace.
>>
>> Many editors come with "programming capabilities".
>>
>> If we focus on VMS then EDT is a bit primitive, but
>> EVE not so - TPU is very much a full programming language.
>>
>> I cannot imagine any text manipulation functionality that
>> could not be implemented in TPU in relative clean code.
>>
>> (for those that does not know TPU then it is a procedural
>> language in the "Pascal family" with a bunch of editor
>> builtins)
>
> I don't think we need to dive into the pros and cons of different
> language or environments.
>
> Suffice to say that I wrote a fairly feature rich Emacs clone in TECO-8.
> TPU would not even get close to running on a PDP-8...
>
> Not a direct argument for TECO on VMS, but it might say a little about
> how complicated or easy it is to write a screen oriented editor in TECO.
>

I wonder why no one ever wrote a version of vi in TPU instead of just
using the Unix C one's that were floating around? Could have made vi
a real VMS editor.

bill

In article <kedv30Fk2anU1@mid.individual.net>,
bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>I wonder why no one ever wrote a version of vi in TPU instead of just
>using the Unix C one's that were floating around? Could have made vi
>a real VMS editor.

I had vi muscle memory from college, so I ended up writing a partial vi
implementation in EVE/TPU about 1985 that worked fairly well. I left
that job about a year later and wasn't able to take it with me. It was
straight forward to do.

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Rich Alderson wrote:
>> No other version of TECO has all the features of the MIT PDP-10
>> version, so no other TECO could host an EMACS.
>
> Not going to argue any part of this except that you can certainly do
> an EMACS in DEC TECO as well, but the original EMACS won't run on DEC
> TECO.

This EMACS-11 was originally written for TECO-11 by none other than Fred
Fish, and the version here claims to run on VMS.

In article <u5s84c$1fo4c$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
Townley) wrote:

> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE
> on VMS it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more
> than simple changes - I would never use it to write any code

I found vi baffling on first exposure, and the only commands I know in it
are for getting out again. If vi or vim is the available screen editor,
I'll resort to ed or ex.

John

On 6/8/2023 8:15 AM, bill wrote:
> I wonder why no one ever wrote a version of vi in TPU instead of just
> using the Unix C one's that were floating around?  Could have made vi
> a real VMS editor.

Someone did.

More than one probably.

But most known is Gregg Wonderly's VITPU:

https://www.digiater.nl/openvms/freeware/v50/vitpu/

Arne

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:47:59 AM UTC-7, Chris Townley wrote:

(snip)

> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE on VMS
> it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more than simple
> changes - I would never use it to write any code
In the OS/2 1.0 days, I ported Stevie to OS/2. I don't remember doing
much more than recompiling it. Then I had a bound executable, so it
would also run on MS-DOS. That was, as well as I know, before vim.

As I remember it, it is ST editor for VI enthusiasts, from the Atari ST.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:39:47 AM UTC-4, John H Reinhardt wrote:
> On 6/5/2023 7:21 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2023-06-05, Chris Townley <ne...@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 05/06/2023 13:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>> On 2023-06-05, terry-...@glaver.org <terry-...@glaver.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone with a VSI x86 kit have TECO?
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't mind an answer to that question either. :-)
> >>>
> >>> (Not because I use it these days, but simply because VSI said they were
> >>> going to offer TECO in some form on x86-64 and I wonder if they followed
> >>> through with that.)
> >>>
> >>> Simon.
> >>>
> >>> PS: I've been offered x86-64 access but am _way_ too busy with other
> >>> things at the moment, so will not be setting it up any time in the near
> >>> future. (Just mentioning this before someone makes the suggestion. :-))
> >>>
> >>
> >> The V9.2-1 release notes stated it does not include TECO
> >>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Simon.
> >
> Neither does the E9.2-1
>
> $ show system/noproc
> OpenVMS E9.2-1 on node SCALZI 5-JUN-2023 08:21:00.83 Uptime 21 08:35:01
> $ teco
> %DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
> \TECO\
> $ dir sys$system:*TECO*
> %DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files found
>
>
> I'm thinking TECO is probably a low priority item. If Compaq/HP had to VEST and TIE/VEST it then the source must be way out of date and not an easy upgrade.
>
> John H. Reinhardt

you may have to vest DIBOL if it is not ported to x86 by synergy company

On 6/8/2023 5:31 PM, Pizza RAC wrote:

> you may have to vest DIBOL if it is not ported to x86 by synergy company

I'm not sure what that above means.

1) There is no translation software for porting Alpha (or IA64) to X86, as has
been mentioned several times over the past few years here.

2) Translating an IA64 image of the compiler would create a compiler
that creates IA64 objects when the newly-translated compiler is run on whatever
target you've translated to.

If you are referring to images whose source was DIBOL, then see
statement 1.

--

--- Rob

On 6/8/2023 5:31 PM, Pizza RAC wrote:
> you may have to vest DIBOL if it is not ported to x86 by synergy company

VEST is VAX->Alpha I believe.

If you want DBL on VMS x86-64 then you should contact
Synergex.

The roadmap:

https://www.synergex.com/roadmap/

does not mention it. Only a lot of .NET stuff.

But if enough paying customers ask for it, then
they may listen.

Arne

On 6/8/2023 5:47 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 08/06/2023 09:23, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 01:00 +0100, Chris Townley wrote:
>>> Although I did have a sysadmin who even tried to load Vi(m) onto out
>>> Itanium in the late noughties. Silly bu$$er!
>>
>> Anyone who's worth their salt should know how to vim :-D
>
> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE on VMS
> it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more than simple
> changes - I would never use it to write any code

That is a very relevant point.

On ones own system one can use whatever one prefer.

But if one has to occasionally work on other systems,
then one need to know one of the editors that are always
available.

Arne

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/7/2023 8:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> > On 08/06/2023 00:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> I suspect that VMS editor choice somewhat correlates
> >> with year of birth.
> >>
> >> TECO EDT EVE VMS IDE
> >> -1960 few/none most some none
> >> 1960-1970 none some most few
> >> 1970-1980 none few most some
> >> 1980-1990 none none most some
> >> 1990- none none some most
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> And if VSI has the same impression then they know what to focus
> >> on to be ready for in 5 years, in 10 years and in 20 years!
> >
> > I would guess that many more would EVE since 1990, and possibly LSE as
> > well, which of course is based in EVE
> I totally forgot about LSE. But I guess we can lump EVE and LSE
> together as they are from the same era.
>
> I don't think LSE ever became super popular. Not that great. And
> in the old days pretty expensive.
> > Although I did have a sysadmin who even tried to load Vi(m) onto out
> > Itanium in the late noughties. Silly bu$$er!
> There has always been a few vi and emacs users on VMS.
>
> Arne
LSE is my daily editor on OpenVMS. The x86 compilers (other than C++) still have their
/DIAGNOSTICS support to make LSE .DIA files.

LSE doesn't use EVE exactly. LSE uses TPU with a few additions. LSE is written partially
in BLISS and partially in TPU. There might be some of the EVE TPU that is also duplicated
in LSE, I don't know that history.

On 09/06/2023 00:11, John Reagan wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/7/2023 8:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2023 00:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> I suspect that VMS editor choice somewhat correlates
>>>> with year of birth.
>>>>
>>>> TECO EDT EVE VMS IDE
>>>> -1960 few/none most some none
>>>> 1960-1970 none some most few
>>>> 1970-1980 none few most some
>>>> 1980-1990 none none most some
>>>> 1990- none none some most
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> And if VSI has the same impression then they know what to focus
>>>> on to be ready for in 5 years, in 10 years and in 20 years!
>>>
>>> I would guess that many more would EVE since 1990, and possibly LSE as
>>> well, which of course is based in EVE
>> I totally forgot about LSE. But I guess we can lump EVE and LSE
>> together as they are from the same era.
>>
>> I don't think LSE ever became super popular. Not that great. And
>> in the old days pretty expensive.
>>> Although I did have a sysadmin who even tried to load Vi(m) onto out
>>> Itanium in the late noughties. Silly bu$$er!
>> There has always been a few vi and emacs users on VMS.
>>
>> Arne
> LSE is my daily editor on OpenVMS. The x86 compilers (other than C++) still have their
> /DIAGNOSTICS support to make LSE .DIA files.
>
> LSE doesn't use EVE exactly. LSE uses TPU with a few additions. LSE is written partially
> in BLISS and partially in TPU. There might be some of the EVE TPU that is also duplicated
> in LSE, I don't know that history.

Any idea when we may see LSE on X86?

--
Chris

On 6/7/2023 8:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> And it still works on VMS Alpha.
>
> $ type myteco.for
>       program myteco
>       integer*4 dot, z
>       character*255 text
>       call teco$init()
>       call teco$load_text('ABCDE')
>       call teco$set_dot(1)
>       call teco$delete_text(3)
>       call teco$set_dot(0)
>       call teco$pointers(dot, z)
>       call teco$get_text(text)
>       write(*,*) z, text(1:z)
>       end
> $ for/tie myteco
> $ link/nonative myteco + sys$input/opt
> sys$library:tecoshr_tv/share
> $
> $ run myteco
>           2 AE

And a more "callable editor"ish example:

$ type mytecox.for
program mytecox
call teco$init()
call teco$edit()
end
$ for/tie mytecox
$ link/nonative mytecox + sys$input/opt
sys$library:tecoshr_tv/share
$ $ run mytecox
*ex$$

Arne

On 6/8/2023 7:17 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 09/06/2023 00:11, John Reagan wrote:
>> LSE is my daily editor on OpenVMS.  The x86 compilers (other than C++)
>> still have their
>> /DIAGNOSTICS support to make LSE .DIA files.
>>
>> LSE doesn't use EVE exactly.  LSE uses TPU with a few additions.  LSE
>> is written partially
>> in BLISS and partially in TPU.  There might be some of the EVE TPU
>> that is also duplicated
>> in LSE, I don't know that history.
>
> Any idea when we may see LSE on X86?

DECSet 13.0-1 for x86-64 does not contain LSE?

Arne

On 6/8/2023 7:17 PM, Chris Townley wrote:

> Any idea when we may see LSE on X86?

It's mostly working, with some sharp edges, as John Reagan has discovered.

It's on my to-do list to clean it up for public consumption, but it's not
at the top of the list, yet.

--

--- Rob

On 6/7/2023 8:50 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2023-06-08 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/7/2023 5:36 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-07 11:09, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>> I must ask (since I have never used TECO).
>>>>
>>>> What is the unique feature of TECO that cannot be done
>>>> with some other tool(s)?
>>>
>>> I don't think there is anything that is that unique.
>>> However, depending on how you use it, you might need a bunch of other
>>> tools to accomplish the same.
>>>
>>> It obviously is an editor. But it's also a programming language that
>>> can be twisted into doing a lot of stuff. If you are familiar with
>>> sed (a Unix tool), it is somewhat similar. But I'd say TECO can do
>>> more. Obviously the original Emacs was written in TECO. There are
>>> other editors written in TECO as well. I sometimes use it when I want
>>> to do somewhat more complex operations over larger text files where
>>> the changes are a bit more complex than just search and replace.
>>
>> Many editors come with "programming capabilities".
>>
>> If we focus on VMS then EDT is a bit primitive, but
>> EVE not so - TPU is very much a full programming language.
>>
>> I cannot imagine any text manipulation functionality that
>> could not be implemented in TPU in relative clean code.
>>
>> (for those that does not know TPU then it is a procedural
>> language in the "Pascal family" with a bunch of editor
>> builtins)
>
> I don't think we need to dive into the pros and cons of different
> language or environments.

Different problems and different preferences lead to
different tool choices.

My point was that TPU is a very powerful tool for
text programming.

It is also sort of indicated by the name: Text Processing Utility.

> Suffice to say that I wrote a fairly feature rich Emacs clone in TECO-8.
> TPU would not even get close to running on a PDP-8...

TPU is actual not bad resource wise.

My experience from late 80's was that about 300 KB memory per
EVE user worked fine on VAX VMS.

Compared to today where Eclipse ships with default initial
memory 256 MB and max memory 2 GB.

But I think that you are right that TPU would not run
on PDP-8 or PDP-11 for that matter. These systems are 15-20
years older than TPU.

Arne

Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> Rich Alderson wrote:
>>> No other version of TECO has all the features of the MIT PDP-10
>>> version, so no other TECO could host an EMACS.
>>
>> Not going to argue any part of this except that you can certainly do
>> an EMACS in DEC TECO as well, but the original EMACS won't run on DEC
>> TECO.
>
> This EMACS-11 was originally written for TECO-11 by none other than Fred
> Fish, and the version here claims to run on VMS.

Forgot the link:

https://github.com/johnsonjh/emacs11

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:11:36 AM UTC+2, John Reagan wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 6/7/2023 8:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> > > On 08/06/2023 00:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > >> I suspect that VMS editor choice somewhat correlates
> > >> with year of birth.
> > >>
> > >> TECO EDT EVE VMS IDE
> > >> -1960 few/none most some none
> > >> 1960-1970 none some most few
> > >> 1970-1980 none few most some
> > >> 1980-1990 none none most some
> > >> 1990- none none some most
> > >>
> > >> :-)
> > >>
> > >> And if VSI has the same impression then they know what to focus
> > >> on to be ready for in 5 years, in 10 years and in 20 years!
> > >
> > > I would guess that many more would EVE since 1990, and possibly LSE as
> > > well, which of course is based in EVE
> > I totally forgot about LSE. But I guess we can lump EVE and LSE
> > together as they are from the same era.
> >
> > I don't think LSE ever became super popular. Not that great. And
> > in the old days pretty expensive.
> > > Although I did have a sysadmin who even tried to load Vi(m) onto out
> > > Itanium in the late noughties. Silly bu$$er!
> > There has always been a few vi and emacs users on VMS.
> >
> > Arne
> LSE is my daily editor on OpenVMS. The x86 compilers (other than C++) still have their
> /DIAGNOSTICS support to make LSE .DIA files.
>
> LSE doesn't use EVE exactly. LSE uses TPU with a few additions. LSE is written partially
> in BLISS and partially in TPU. There might be some of the EVE TPU that is also duplicated
> in LSE, I don't know that history.
LSE has two command languages, the "OpenVMS" one (similar to DCL) and the "portable" one, which was added later on. The portable command language works the same way as EVE and I believe that the functions behind it have been copied from EVE. Not sure to what extent and since I'm at home I have no access to a running system right now, but I have "ported" a few EVE functions like box cut/paste to LSE and changed/extended a number of LSE functions (to be found in the LSEDIT notes conference if someone has access to it).

John Reagan schrieb am Freitag, 9. Juni 2023 um 01:11:36 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 6/7/2023 8:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> > > On 08/06/2023 00:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > >> I suspect that VMS editor choice somewhat correlates
> > >> with year of birth.
> > >>
> > >> TECO EDT EVE VMS IDE
> > >> -1960 few/none most some none
> > >> 1960-1970 none some most few
> > >> 1970-1980 none few most some
> > >> 1980-1990 none none most some
> > >> 1990- none none some most
> > >>
> > >> :-)
> > >>
> > >> And if VSI has the same impression then they know what to focus
> > >> on to be ready for in 5 years, in 10 years and in 20 years!
> > >
> > > I would guess that many more would EVE since 1990, and possibly LSE as
> > > well, which of course is based in EVE
> > I totally forgot about LSE. But I guess we can lump EVE and LSE
> > together as they are from the same era.
> >
> > I don't think LSE ever became super popular. Not that great. And
> > in the old days pretty expensive.
> > > Although I did have a sysadmin who even tried to load Vi(m) onto out
> > > Itanium in the late noughties. Silly bu$$er!
> > There has always been a few vi and emacs users on VMS.
> >
> > Arne
> LSE is my daily editor on OpenVMS. The x86 compilers (other than C++) still have their
> /DIAGNOSTICS support to make LSE .DIA files.
>
> LSE doesn't use EVE exactly. LSE uses TPU with a few additions. LSE is written partially
> in BLISS and partially in TPU. There might be some of the EVE TPU that is also duplicated
> in LSE, I don't know that history.
LSEDIT has two command languages, the older one similar to DCL, and the "portable" one. I believe this has been added due to plans to port LSEDIT to Digital Unix or whatever it has been called back then.
The portable command language and quite a number of functions have been copied from EVE (and can be found in the LSE directory in SYS$EXAMPLES).
I have ported BOX CUT/PASTE from EVE to LSE as this was missing (to be found in the LSEDIT notes conference).

jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:

> In article <u5s84c$1fo4c$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
> Townley) wrote:

>> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE
>> on VMS it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more
>> than simple changes - I would never use it to write any code

> I found vi baffling on first exposure, and the only commands I know in it
> are for getting out again. If vi or vim is the available screen editor,
> I'll resort to ed or ex.

I only know enough vi to edit the password file (using the vipw command), or in
the old days before autoconfiguration I could edit the Emacs configuration files
to install a decent editor.

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:
>
>> In article <u5s84c$1fo4c$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
>> Townley) wrote:
>
>>> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE
>>> on VMS it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more
>>> than simple changes - I would never use it to write any code
>
>> I found vi baffling on first exposure, and the only commands I know in it
>> are for getting out again. If vi or vim is the available screen editor,
>> I'll resort to ed or ex.
>
>I only know enough vi to edit the password file (using the vipw command), or in
>the old days before autoconfiguration I could edit the Emacs configuration files
>to install a decent editor.

What you need to know about vi above all is that it's modal. If you don't
know what is going on, hit escape and it will put you back into the default
operating mode. The second thing you need to know is that unlike emacs, you
cannot edit something that isn't there; the end of a line is the end of a
line and there is nothing past it until you add something.

Given these two pieces of information you can read the introduction to vi
that is in the Berkeley 4.1 manual and figure out how to use vi.

vi is an extension to ed... all the ed commands still work in it, but you
also get visual editing as a side-effect. It's a line editor with a screen
editor added to it. What makes it powerful is that it still has all the
sophisticated command line tools of the line editor. What makes it convenient
is that it has screen editing functions.

Now, there's stuff that you can't do easily in vi, like working with columns.
It's a terrible choice for doing ascii art. But for text, I rather like it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>We have long moved past the point where absolute speed is the primary
>driver in software design. Today, the focus should be on safer computing,
>even at the expense of some overhead. To do otherwise is utterly
>irresponsible in today's world IMHO.

Unfortunately the focus today is on speed and low cost. People toss together
rapid prototypes and put them into production systems. Back in the eighties
software engineering people talked about code reusability as being a goal
for improving code quality. Now people just cut and paste library calls
that they don't understand off of websites and wonder why their machine is
so slow and insecure.

Pretty much all of the things we need to implement very safe computing
systems were developed in the 1970s and 1980s and prototype capability
architectures have been tested and used. Back then, people were not willing
to live with the substantial performance hit. Today, that performance hit
is even more of a problem because so much code is written so much more poorly.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>Believe it or not, `sed` is actually Turing complete; I imagine
>that TECO is as well. So in some absolute sense, both are
>equally powerful.

If that were the case, one could write some yacc code to turn sed scripts
into teco scripts. This may hurt your brain.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <u61md6$49j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>Believe it or not, `sed` is actually Turing complete; I imagine
>>that TECO is as well. So in some absolute sense, both are
>>equally powerful.
>
>If that were the case, one could write some yacc code to turn sed scripts
>into teco scripts. This may hurt your brain.

I don't know if yacc would be the best tool for that, but yeah,
it sounds very doable. It'd be an interesting hack, if nothing
else.

- Dan C.

In article <mddo7lo2nd4.fsf@panix5.panix.com>,
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:
>
>> In article <u5s84c$1fo4c$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
>> Townley) wrote:
>
>>> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE
>>> on VMS it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more
>>> than simple changes - I would never use it to write any code
>
>> I found vi baffling on first exposure, and the only commands I know in it
>> are for getting out again. If vi or vim is the available screen editor,
>> I'll resort to ed or ex.
>
>I only know enough vi to edit the password file (using the vipw command), or in
>the old days before autoconfiguration I could edit the Emacs configuration files
>to install a decent editor.

Over the years,I've found it useful to retain facility with
several different editors, selecting between them based on
context. If I'm working on plan9, I'll use acme or sam; if
I'm on Unix, vi, though knowing how to use `ed` has been very
useful in many surprising ways; if I'm programming in Lisp, or
using Multics or TOPS-20, then emacs; on VMS I use EDT; etc.
For work-a-day programming these days I like VS Code with the
language server support.

- Dan C.