ASCII is dead as it should be. It goes back to the telegraph era
(i.e. Morse code). The first 32 bytes (except EOL, LF, and CR)
of ASCII are transmission control codes that are no longer relevant.

ASCII has been incorporated first into ISO-8859-1 and now into
UTF-8, which is (or should be) the global standard.

But what happened to the first 32 bytes of UTF-8? Obviously
LF and CR are still there, but have the former control codes
been replaced by other, and more meaningful, code points?

As far as I know, the first 32 bytes (except CR and LF) are
just dead space. Is this correct?

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 14:51:25 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 14:39:50 +0000, FR wrote:
>
> [opinions ellided]
>
>> But what happened to the first 32 bytes of UTF-8? Obviously
>> LF and CR are still there, but have the former control codes
>> been replaced by other, and more meaningful, code points?
>
> See https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf
> Also https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf
>
>> As far as I know, the first 32 bytes (except CR and LF) are
>> just dead space. Is this correct?
>
> Not in the least.
>

A comprehensive answer is here:

https://www.aivosto.com/articles/control-characters.html

To preserve the integrity of conversions and interchange,
the control codes remain.

However, the semantics of the control codes are reserved
to applications.

So the control codes are in a kind of limbo. They have
only an application-specific meaning but in the absence
of an application they are to be interpreted according
to ISO/IEC 6429:1992. (Unicode 9.0 p. 822)

Jeff,

>> As far as I know, the first 32 [ code points ] (except CR and LF)
>> are just dead space. Is this correct ?
>
> No, US-ASCII is a subset of the set of Unicode code points.

Try to understand the question before you answer it.

@Fabian Russell:

> As far as I know, the first 32 [ code points ] (except CR and LF)
> are just dead space. Is this correct ?

No. All of those have definite meanings. Just think of the BACKSPACE
(0x08), TAB (0x09), ESCape (0x1B) and BELL (0x07) characters. One you
might never have heard of is ctrl-Z (0x1A), which, for old-style textfiles,
means that the file ends (even when it may contain some more
characters/garbage).

For a full list you could take a peek here : http://asciiset.com/

Granted, quite a few of the control-characters there you will never use.
They are still there if you need them though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Did you also think of the DEL (0x7F) character ? Just as the BACKSPACE
character is used to delete the character left of the cursor, the DEL
character is ment to delete the character under the cursor.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 17:36:37 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

>
>> As far as I know, the first 32 [ code points ] (except CR and LF)
>> are just dead space. Is this correct ?
>
> No. All of those have definite meanings.
>

According to the link that I cited, in Unicode the meanings,
outside of an application, are not always the same as the original:

"Unicode specifies semantics for the following control characters:
ASCII control characters:

HT and SP are considered whitespace.

LF, VT, FF and CR are considered whitespace, and also mandatory line breaks
in the line breaking algorithm.

FS, GS, RS and US are considered separators in the bi-directional algorithm."

Thus if I encounter an HT control code in some UTF-8 file
then I should process that code as whitespace.

But a specific application may choose to use the HT control
code for some other purpose.

FR,

> According to the link that I cited

...grumble ... Jeff-Relf changed the subject and with it made it look, in my
chronological list, as if it was a new thread. Only now I notice your "Any
Unicode Experts?" post.

Alas, although I do know a bit about ASCII, I never bothered to know much
about unicode.

> HT and SP are considered whitespace.
....
> Thus if I encounter an HT control code in some UTF-8
> file then I should process that code as whitespace.

That fully depends on what you mean with "processed".

For "scanning the string" purposes ? Yes, you can handle both in the same
way (just like you may do with most most all of the other control
characters, possibly even including CR and LF [1] ).

For *displaying* purposes ? Nope, both have a different effect.

[1] if you have access to a C{something} compiler you could take a peek at
how fscanf and printf deal with those control characters. IIRC fscanf for
a value will ignore CR and LF (which is not always what you want...)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 17:25:11 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2021-08-06, FR <fr@random.info> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 17:36:37 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:
>>
>
> To sum up, there is whitespace and there is whitespace. The
> differences between the various characters may be subtle, but
> that doesn't mean that you should treat them all the same.
> Each has its own special use.
>

Whitespace can be independent of format. When doing a search,
for example, a whitespace char is simply skipped over.

Formatting is also something that is independent of a particular
character set. Formatting is achieved by an application such
as a word processor, type setter, etc. that would use its own
internal codes and not that of the charset.

Although the old ASCII format codes are still present in
Unicode they, aside from EOL, should not be interpreted as such
when processing a UTF-8 text file, for example. In Unicode
their interpretation is ambiguous. Anyone composing with UTF-8
would never use them.

Unicode does have many unambiguous formatting characters such as
U+2028, line separator, and U+2029, paragraph separator, but, not
being an expert in Unicode, I wouldn't know how or where to use them.

Unicode is supposed to provide the symbols but not the formatting
instructions. Some languages might require special codes for a
proper construction, but this is not the same as formatting.

In comp.os.linux.misc FR <fr@random.info> wrote:
> ASCII is dead as it should be. It goes back to the telegraph era
> (i.e. Morse code). The first 32 bytes (except EOL, LF, and CR)
> of ASCII are transmission control codes that are no longer relevant.
>
> ASCII has been incorporated first into ISO-8859-1 and now into
> UTF-8, which is (or should be) the global standard.
>
> But what happened to the first 32 bytes of UTF-8? Obviously
> LF and CR are still there, but have the former control codes
> been replaced by other, and more meaningful, code points?
>
> As far as I know, the first 32 bytes (except CR and LF) are
> just dead space. Is this correct?

The first 127 Unicode code points are identical to the ASCII code
points that predated Unicode. All of ASCII exists as the first 127
Unicode code points.

(Follow-up to comp.os.linux.advocacy ignored.)

In comp.os.linux.misc, FR <fr@random.info> wrote:
> ASCII is dead as it should be. It goes back to the telegraph era
> (i.e. Morse code). The first 32 bytes (except EOL, LF, and CR)
> of ASCII are transmission control codes that are no longer relevant.
....
> As far as I know, the first 32 bytes (except CR and LF) are
> just dead space. Is this correct?

No, absolutely not.

Null and horizontal tab get a lot of use still. Vertical tab and
form feed get a little. Arguably escape and backspace get used (eg
terminal control sequences). Whatever the status of the rest vis-a-vis
newly composed documents, their meanings remain unchanged for historical
documents.

Unicode, covering Linear A (U+10600 to U+1077F, in use from 1800 to 1450
BC) to Signwriting (U+1D800 to U+1DAAF, a generalized notation for
writing down sign languages) aims to include modern and historical
content. Just because you should not expect to generate new content
with start of heading (SOH) or end transmission block (ETB), doesn't
mean those characters are dead space.

Elijah
------
has a soft spot for ␗ U+0017

On 06/08/2021 21:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> (Follow-up to comp.os.linux.advocacy ignored.)
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc, FR <fr@random.info> wrote:
>> ASCII is dead as it should be. It goes back to the telegraph era
>> (i.e. Morse code). The first 32 bytes (except EOL, LF, and CR)
>> of ASCII are transmission control codes that are no longer relevant.
> ...
>> As far as I know, the first 32 bytes (except CR and LF) are
>> just dead space. Is this correct?
>
> No, absolutely not.
>
> Null and horizontal tab get a lot of use still. Vertical tab and
> form feed get a little. Arguably escape and backspace get used (eg
> terminal control sequences). Whatever the status of the rest vis-a-vis
> newly composed documents, their meanings remain unchanged for historical
> documents.
>
Ctrl-Z and Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V have a lot of use too

> Unicode, covering Linear A (U+10600 to U+1077F, in use from 1800 to 1450
> BC) to Signwriting (U+1D800 to U+1DAAF, a generalized notation for
> writing down sign languages) aims to include modern and historical
> content. Just because you should not expect to generate new content
> with start of heading (SOH) or end transmission block (ETB), doesn't
> mean those characters are dead space.
>
Indeed not. They are handy as with all 'out of band' text characters as
control characters on communications streams that could conceivably be
useful again sometime in the future

> Elijah
> ------
> has a soft spot for ␗ U+0017
>

--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/08/2021 21:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> > Null and horizontal tab get a lot of use still. Vertical tab and
> > form feed get a little. Arguably escape and backspace get used (eg
> > terminal control sequences). Whatever the status of the rest vis-a-vis
> > newly composed documents, their meanings remain unchanged for historical
> > documents.
> Ctrl-Z and Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V have a lot of use too

I type those, and others like ctrl-W, ctrl-U, ctrl-F, ctrl-B, ctrl-D,
ctrl-R, etc, reasonably often, but I don't encounter them in files,
unlike the ones I named. (I have checked-in files at github with embedded
terminal control sequences.) So those _feel_ different. The stty
settings are just defaults, and can be changed. There's nothing special
about the characters. The ones I use in vi, not in stty, are are not
changable, but are based on mnemonics instead of ASCII meaning. I use
ctrl-F for "forward page" not for ACK.

The stty ones:
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^?; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>;
eol2 = <undef>; swtch = <undef>; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z;
rprnt = ^R; werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; discard = ^O;

Of those that have settings, only discard do I not use. Stop, I use, but
usually by accident and then I have to start again. I'd like that one to
default to undef, but I log in to too many computers per day to bother
trying to manually set it. Reprint, escape next (lnext), and quit I use
fairly rarely, but when I need them there's no substitute.

Oh, wait, you're thinking of Windows short cuts. I don't think they are
meant to map to a character _ever_. Those are just key press events
caught by the OS / program, same as command keys in Macs.

Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.

> Indeed not. They are handy as with all 'out of band' text characters as
> control characters on communications streams that could conceivably be
> useful again sometime in the future

I like tab separated values more than comma separated values, because
with rare exceptions[*], tabs in text can be converted to spaces without
loss of meaning, so I can have a separator that never needs quoting. But
using ASCII RS (ctrl-^) for it's intended purpose as a record separator
just feels obsolent and wrong to me, even if it is even less likely to
appear in the sort of things I put into TSV files.

[*] And the sorts of things that do need raw tabs, like Makefiles, I
don't put in TSV files.

Elijah
------
in two minutes of testing could not get ^O (discard) to do anything

On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.

I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.

In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>
> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.

Except with WordStar, cut and copy were two character sequences (^K^C
^K^X for copy and cut, and ^K^V for paste). The second character was
the same, but they were not single key presses.

I saw an explanation at some point that alluded to the choice of X for
cut, C for copy, and V for paste as trying to mimic the red-ink markup
that copy editors would make on paper manuscripts for changes they
wanted made. They would cross out (loosely an X) stuff to delete
(i.e., cut), and use a caret (loosely a V) to indicate where to insert
something. So cut becoming "X" and "paste/insert" becoming "V", at
least given that explanation, made some sense. Copy then becoming "C"
was simply mnemonic. Whether the author was simply "back constructing
a meaning" for the mappings I do not know.

On 08/08/2021 19.27, Rich wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
>>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>>
>> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.
>
> Except with WordStar, cut and copy were two character sequences (^K^C
> ^K^X for copy and cut, and ^K^V for paste). The second character was
> the same, but they were not single key presses.
>
> I saw an explanation at some point that alluded to the choice of X for
> cut, C for copy, and V for paste as trying to mimic the red-ink markup
> that copy editors would make on paper manuscripts for changes they
> wanted made. They would cross out (loosely an X) stuff to delete
> (i.e., cut), and use a caret (loosely a V) to indicate where to insert
> something. So cut becoming "X" and "paste/insert" becoming "V", at
> least given that explanation, made some sense. Copy then becoming "C"
> was simply mnemonic. Whether the author was simply "back constructing
> a meaning" for the mappings I do not know.
>

It is possible. The "user interface" of the original Wordstar was
designed for touch typists.

I could not understand why when they created other Wordstar versions
(say, wordstar 2000?) they changed the key bindings.

The use of ^C, ^X, ^V alone (or equivalents using the insert/delete key)
came later, with the CUA design used in other software and in Windows.

CUA: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Il 08/08/2021 06:50, rbowman ha scritto:
> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>
> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.

I don't think so. These are the old commands for wordstar:
https://sfwriter.com/wordstar-command-summary.pdf
In my memory the first Ctrl-X/Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V shortcuts I saw with the
first full-screen commands in ms-dos 3.1: explorer.exe and qbasic.exe.
Explorer was very similar to the Windows version but in semi-graphics
(video in text mode and windows drawn with ascii-extended fonts). These
programs finally allowed to use the mouse making the old shortcuts
difficult to use (Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins) with the left hand
(to keep the right hand on the mouse), however the old shortcuts also
work today and often even with programs that suppress the new shortcuts.

cheers

On 08/08/2021 12:32 PM, jak wrote:
> Il 08/08/2021 06:50, rbowman ha scritto:
>> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first existed.
>>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>>
>> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.
>
> I don't think so. These are the old commands for wordstar:
> https://sfwriter.com/wordstar-command-summary.pdf
> In my memory the first Ctrl-X/Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V shortcuts I saw with the
> first full-screen commands in ms-dos 3.1: explorer.exe and qbasic.exe.
> Explorer was very similar to the Windows version but in semi-graphics
> (video in text mode and windows drawn with ascii-extended fonts). These
> programs finally allowed to use the mouse making the old shortcuts
> difficult to use (Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins) with the left hand
> (to keep the right hand on the mouse), however the old shortcuts also
> work today and often even with programs that suppress the new shortcuts.
>
> cheers

Brief had those key bindings but by '85 it wasn't clear who was copying
who. That was the only programming editor I ever paid money for. Borland
bought it and buried it.

I'm not a power user of the VS editor but 35 years later it seems to
lack the features of Brief.

On 08/08/2021 07:11 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Bowman:
>> I'm not a power user of the VS editor but
>> 35 years later it seems to lack the features of Brief.
>
> My macros & extensions to Visual Studio 2019: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Macros.HTM
>
> In Visual Studio, I'm editing a small, recently opened text file.
> AutoRecover is turned off.
>
> For that, it's consuming 1.8 gigabytes of RAM, and growing rapidly;
> occasionally, it drops back down to "just" 1.2 gigabytes.
>
> Just now, it disappeared from the task manager altogether,
> showing up again only after ReStarting the task manager.
>
> Every time I debug my app, memory usage goes up,
> briefly topping 2 gigabytes, _after_ exiting the app/debugger.
> Hmmm... it's a memory leak, apparently.
>
> I ReStarted Visual Studio, now it's consuming 186 megabytes,
> no more memory leaking.
>
> "while(1);" borks Visual Studio, apparently.
>

It would tend to do that. Even a more complex while statement that
doesn't have any natural points where it will block will try for 100% of
the cpu. At least now it only ties up one core.

Il 09/08/2021 02:00, rbowman ha scritto:
> On 08/08/2021 12:32 PM, jak wrote:
>> Il 08/08/2021 06:50, rbowman ha scritto:
>>> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first
>>>> existed.
>>>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>>>
>>> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.
>>
>> I don't think so. These are the old commands for wordstar:
>> https://sfwriter.com/wordstar-command-summary.pdf
>> In my memory the first Ctrl-X/Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V shortcuts I saw with the
>> first full-screen commands in ms-dos 3.1: explorer.exe and qbasic.exe.
>> Explorer was very similar to the Windows version but in semi-graphics
>> (video in text mode and windows drawn with ascii-extended fonts). These
>> programs finally allowed to use the mouse making the old shortcuts
>> difficult to use (Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins) with the left hand
>> (to keep the right hand on the mouse), however the old shortcuts also
>> work today and often even with programs that suppress the new shortcuts.
>>
>> cheers
>
> Brief had those key bindings but by '85 it wasn't clear who was copying
> who. That was the only programming editor I ever paid money for. Borland
> bought it and buried it.
>
> I'm not a power user of the VS editor but 35 years later it seems to
> lack the features of Brief.

In this way you make me dig up the past ... At that time I started
developing in dos and windows but I came from the unix and xenix world,
so the only editor I knew was the Vi, so I got a copy that ran under dos
.. A powerful copy weighing 17KB. I stopped using it only many years
later when Multiedit (an amazing editor) came on the market.

On 08/08/2021 11:28 PM, jak wrote:
> Il 09/08/2021 02:00, rbowman ha scritto:
>> On 08/08/2021 12:32 PM, jak wrote:
>>> Il 08/08/2021 06:50, rbowman ha scritto:
>>>> On 08/07/2021 10:32 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>>>> Ctrl-C for Copy I think exists because Command-C for copy first
>>>>> existed.
>>>>> Neither has anything to do with the ASCII control character ETX.
>>>>
>>>> I'm probably wrong but I think WordStar had an influence.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. These are the old commands for wordstar:
>>> https://sfwriter.com/wordstar-command-summary.pdf
>>> In my memory the first Ctrl-X/Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V shortcuts I saw with the
>>> first full-screen commands in ms-dos 3.1: explorer.exe and qbasic.exe.
>>> Explorer was very similar to the Windows version but in semi-graphics
>>> (video in text mode and windows drawn with ascii-extended fonts). These
>>> programs finally allowed to use the mouse making the old shortcuts
>>> difficult to use (Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins) with the left hand
>>> (to keep the right hand on the mouse), however the old shortcuts also
>>> work today and often even with programs that suppress the new shortcuts.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>
>> Brief had those key bindings but by '85 it wasn't clear who was
>> copying who. That was the only programming editor I ever paid money
>> for. Borland bought it and buried it.
>>
>> I'm not a power user of the VS editor but 35 years later it seems to
>> lack the features of Brief.
>
> In this way you make me dig up the past ... At that time I started
> developing in dos and windows but I came from the unix and xenix world,
> so the only editor I knew was the Vi, so I got a copy that ran under dos
> . A powerful copy weighing 17KB. I stopped using it only many years
> later when Multiedit (an amazing editor) came on the market.

Back when a 1 GB hard drive was huge, the choice between Vim and Emacs
was a no-brainer. iirc Vim was 1.6 MB, Emacs was 25 MB. It looks like
gVim has porked up to 2.7.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.misc rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
> Except with WordStar, cut and copy were two character sequences (^K^C
> ^K^X for copy and cut, and ^K^V for paste).

Not quite:

^K^C was indeed copy the previously marked block.

But ^K^V is to *move* the marked block of text to the cursor location.
*Paste* is generally more of a copy procedure, whether or not the block
of text has actually been previously cut.

And ^K^X is to exit theWordStar/'joe' program.

Being imprinted by WordStar nearly 40 years ago, I still use the
same keystrokes whether I am using true WorStar on CP/M, or using the
'jstar' alter-ego of the 'joe' text-editor in Linux.

Regards.

Jack

--
"My mother says I don't know what good, clean fun is.
She's right. I don't know what good it is."

- Laugh-In, 1968

Il 09/08/2021 15:56, rbowman ha scritto:
> Back when a 1 GB hard drive was huge, the choice between Vim and Emacs
> was a no-brainer. iirc Vim was 1.6 MB, Emacs was 25 MB. It looks like
> gVim has porked up to 2.7.

No. Further back. When a hard drive was huge if greater than 30MB.

On 10/08/2021 09:33, jak wrote:
> Il 09/08/2021 15:56, rbowman ha scritto:
>> Back when a 1 GB hard drive was huge, the choice between Vim and Emacs
>> was a no-brainer. iirc Vim was 1.6 MB, Emacs was 25 MB. It looks like
>> gVim has porked up to 2.7.
>
> No. Further back. When a hard drive was huge if greater than 30MB.

haha.
when the PC running a serial program to the PDP 11 had more RAM than the
PDP!

And some twat ran IIRC SED all over the source files and turned multiple
spaces into tabs to reduce the space...and ruined all my C string
cọnstants!!!

Happy dayz.

It was quicker to grab the files over the serial link, edit them with
wordstar on the PC, and upload them and then compile them.

just used 'vi' for quick hacks...

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

Il 10/08/2021 13:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 10/08/2021 09:33, jak wrote:
>> Il 09/08/2021 15:56, rbowman ha scritto:
>>> Back when a 1 GB hard drive was huge, the choice between Vim and
>>> Emacs was a no-brainer. iirc Vim was 1.6 MB, Emacs was 25 MB. It
>>> looks like gVim has porked up to 2.7.
>>
>> No. Further back. When a hard drive was huge if greater than 30MB.
>
> haha.
> when the PC running a serial program to the PDP 11 had more RAM than the
> PDP!
>
> And some twat ran IIRC SED all over the source files and turned multiple
> spaces into tabs to reduce the space...and ruined all my C string
> cọnstants!!!
>
> Happy dayz.
>
> It was quicker to grab the files over the serial link, edit them with
> wordstar on the PC, and upload them and then compile them.
>
> just used 'vi' for quick hacks...
>

It should be remembered more often than to modify the source codes, the
'Vi' can be a great ally when it is renamed 'Ed'.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:26:27 +0200, jak wrote:

> Il 10/08/2021 13:49, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 10/08/2021 09:33, jak wrote:
>>> Il 09/08/2021 15:56, rbowman ha scritto:
>>>> Back when a 1 GB hard drive was huge, the choice between Vim and
>>>> Emacs was a no-brainer. iirc Vim was 1.6 MB, Emacs was 25 MB. It
>>>> looks like gVim has porked up to 2.7.
>>>
>>> No. Further back. When a hard drive was huge if greater than 30MB.
>>
>> haha.
>> when the PC running a serial program to the PDP 11 had more RAM than
>> the PDP!
>>
>> And some twat ran IIRC SED all over the source files and turned
>> multiple spaces into tabs to reduce the space...and ruined all my C
>> string cọnstants!!!
>>
>> Happy dayz.
>>
>> It was quicker to grab the files over the serial link, edit them with
>> wordstar on the PC, and upload them and then compile them.
>>
>> just used 'vi' for quick hacks...
>>
>>
> It should be remembered more often than to modify the source codes, the
> 'Vi' can be a great ally when it is renamed 'Ed'.

Thank gosh!

Sensible people on the usenets!

--
-v

Il 09/08/2021 03:11, Jeff-Relf.Me@. ha scritto:
> Bowman:
>> I'm not a power user of the VS editor but
>> 35 years later it seems to lack the features of Brief.
>
> My macros & extensions to Visual Studio 2019: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Macros.HTM
>
> In Visual Studio, I'm editing a small, recently opened text file.
> AutoRecover is turned off.
>
> For that, it's consuming 1.8 gigabytes of RAM, and growing rapidly;
> occasionally, it drops back down to "just" 1.2 gigabytes.
>
> Just now, it disappeared from the task manager altogether,
> showing up again only after ReStarting the task manager.
>
> Every time I debug my app, memory usage goes up,
> briefly topping 2 gigabytes, _after_ exiting the app/debugger.
> Hmmm... it's a memory leak, apparently.
>
> I ReStarted Visual Studio, now it's consuming 186 megabytes,
> no more memory leaking.
>
> "while(1);" borks Visual Studio, apparently.
>
sad C coders:

while(1);

better:

#define ever (;;)

for ever;

XDD

Il 10/08/2021 18:28, Jeff-Relf.Me@. ha scritto:
> You (jak) replied ( to me ):
>>> "while(1);" borks Visual Studio.
>>
>> #define ever (;;)
>> for ever;
>
> while(malloc(666));
>

With your version, VS will probably just survive a few seconds. ;^)