Aredridel wrote:

> > BG> Emacs and vi are astounding at editing text.  I doubt there's
>anything out
>  
>
>>BG> there that can do more.  They also happen to have some pretty good support
>>BG> for a whole lot of different languages.
>>    
>>
>
>I enjoy vi as part of a whole system.
>
>gdb or ruby -rdebug for debugging. vi for editing. make and rake for
>build automation. I assemble this small arsenal of tiny tools, and the
>learning curve drastically shallows as I learn, because what works on
>the shell works within vi (!!yourcommandhere), and the tools all work
>together, because they have to, not out of explicit support for each
>other.
>
>Ari
>
>
>  
>
One feature i find vi/nvi/vim/whatever is lacking is the ability to have 
an interactive shell inside a buffer, i can be in
one xemacs session, and C-X2-C-Xo m-x shell and i have a command prompt 
sitting right there, which i can even copy and paste from. I've never 
found a way to do this in vi, and i find it much more productive to be 
able to do everything from one terminal than constantly switching 
backwards and forwards between processes. Just my $0.02 :)

Also, emacs can make a great ide with the code browser, which uses 
semantic (and so supports ruby) and ruby-mode.el is great. :)

    -kyu