I'm sort of stuck between the two. I like them both, but figure it's 
more productive to stick with one for a stretch. I figured maybe I'd go 
with the one that was more attuned with Ruby culture, if there was such 
a learning.

I'm on OS/X if that makes any difference.

Thanks,
Nick

Gavin Sinclair wrote:

>>I won't ask which is better, since I've just read some of the colorful
>>net discussions on that topic.
>>
>>However, I've been mucking about in each, and am about to pick one to
>>learn well. I get the impression that this list is about 2 to 1 in VIMs
>>favour for usage (where either is being used). Is this roughly accurate?
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt it's possible to determine.  You should just conclude that there
>is sufficient usage of both to be able to help you with any problems.
>
>  
>
>> If so, is this because of VIM's potential to be compiled with Ruby
>>bindings to it's API?
>>    
>>
>
>That's a good question, and the answer is no.  Both editors are complex in
>their own way, and implement a certain philosophy of text editing.  It's a
>psychological fit with that philosophy that drives usage, not Ruby
>bindings to an API.  The former is an order of magnitude more significant
>than the latter.
>
>I am an expert in both Vim and Ruby, and don't bother to use the Ruby
>bindings.  They're cool to have (even thought I rarely have them compiled
>in), but I've never thought of doing anything that requires them.  BTW, I
>hate Vim's inbuilt scripting language.
>
>Cheers,
>Gavin
>
>
>
>  
>