My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice. What did I use it for? Well, of course, MazeWars with those nifty Imlacs. The real sw I did was on the Multics machine, totally different. On the 10, I really hated EMACS, loved TECO.. The Xerox XGP printer showed up at the same time, mostly locally famous for being quite temperamental and absurdly expensive. So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10? The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but having to use Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.
BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame. If I'm not just writing some text document, I use VIM.

Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com> writes:

> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently
> waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early

Apologies for immediately hijacking the thread, but would this be the
PiDP-10? Any information on when it'll actually go up for sale? As the
owner of a PiDP-11 (which I hope to put on the Supercomputing conference
network this year, to get "the world's best-connected PDP-11") I'm
definitely interested in a -10.

john

Bill E wrote:
> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently
> waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit.

I'm sorry if I'm giving the impression it's my kit. It's made by Oscar
Vermeulen. I'm just an enthustiastic supporter.

> So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite
> programming lang for the 10?

I was already a heavy Emacs user on Unix when I came to ITS, so
EMACS it is!

> I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done

There was a C compiler on the Dynamic Modeling PDP-10. Possibly the
first one written outside Bell Labs! Since Lisp isn't to your taste, I
suggest looking into CLU, created on the same machine.

On 7/3/2023 2:05 PM, John wrote:
> Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently
>> waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early
>
> Apologies for immediately hijacking the thread, but would this be the
> PiDP-10? Any information on when it'll actually go up for sale?

Real Soon Now™ Oscar (Vermeulen) was at VCFSW (https://www.vcfsw.org/) this past weekend (June 23-26) and we had adjoining tables. On one of those days it was scheduled for his case contractor to start cutting the injection mold for the case. If that goes well then the finished product could be available "later this summer". The prototype that Oscar brought to the show had a case that was CNC machined from a solid piece of plastic as a test.

>
> john

John H. Reinhardt

According to Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com>:
>So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang
>for the 10? The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked
>to fit, but having to use Fortran?

At Yale we wrote a lot of code in BLISS36. It's a little strange
(everthing is an expression, all variable references need an explicit
dot) but it is roughly at the level of C while being better suited to
the 10's architecture. You could force it to emit specific
instructions for those great hacks that the compiler couldn't quite
do.

We used a locally written screen editor based on the RAND editor. It
was much less powerful than emacs but also a lot faster and more
predictable.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

> but it is roughly at the level of C while being better suited to
> the 10's architecture.

One of the things I've long wondered about is if Thompson, Ritchie, and
the gang had been gotten a PDP-10 like they'd asked for, what would C
have looked like?

Dave

According to David Bridgham <dab@froghouse.org>:
>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> but it is roughly at the level of C while being better suited to
>> the 10's architecture.
>
>One of the things I've long wondered about is if Thompson, Ritchie, and
>the gang had been gotten a PDP-10 like they'd asked for, what would C
>have looked like?

The first versions of C ran on a GE 635 which is a lot more like a
PDP-10 than it is like a PDP-11. It's 36 bit word addressed with funky
character pointers, although funky in a different way from the byte
pointers on the -10. So probably not that different.

I suspect the main difference would be that you couldn't turn any kind
of pointer into a character pointer and back, which would mean you
couldn't copy arbitrary chunks of memory by stepping through char *
pointers.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com> writes:

> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for
> the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the
> OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice. What did I use it for? Well, of
> course, MazeWars with those nifty Imlacs. The real sw I did was on the
> Multics machine, totally different. On the 10, I really hated EMACS, loved
> TECO. The Xerox XGP printer showed up at the same time, mostly locally famous
> for being quite temperamental and absurdly expensive. So, my questions, what
> is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10?
> The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C
> and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but
> having to use Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.

> BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which
> derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame. If I'm not just writing some
> text document, I use VIM.

I was introduced to EMACS on TOPS-20 ("TWENEX" for you MIT types) about two
months after meeting the DEC-20 at UofChicago. (This was after learning TSO
EDIT on the System/360 at Ohio State, and Wylbur on the UC 370 and EDIT = SOS
on the -20.) Before I settled on EMACS, I played with TV (a DEC fullscreen
TECO) for a while.

I've been an EMACS user since 1977. In fact, I was appointed official
maintainer of MIT TECO and EMACS by RMS himself, after I posted a Y2K fix to
Kent Pitman's DATE library in 1999.

As for languages, I wrote a PDP-10 disassembler in Pascal, in part to better
learn the machine language. I got CStacy to send us a tape of MDL 105 when the
CS program started at Chicago, and was briefly a member of X3J13 (ANSI Common
Lisp committee).

These days, I mostly do things in PDP-10 assembler, for money.

Old .sig file:

Rich Alderson Last LOTS Tops-20 Systems Programmer, 1984-1991
Current maintainer, MIT TECO EMACS (v. 170)
last name @ XKL dot COM Customer Interface, XKL LLC

--
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

It appears that Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com> said:
>BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame.

Not really. VI is the visual mode of "ex" which Bill Joy wrote as a
souped up version of the ancient Unix "ed' editor which Ken Thompson
wrote as a cut down version of the SDS 940 "qed" editor to fit on
tiny early Unix machines. I believe qed was the first editor to use
regular expessions.

Apparently Bill had seen emacs, but he wrote vi anyway. The key layout
apparently minimized the finger motion so he could type as fast as
possible.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine wrote:
> We used a locally written screen editor based on the RAND editor. It
> was much less powerful than emacs but also a lot faster and more
> predictable.

Maybe that would be E? It keeps coming up when I read about text editor
history.

> The first versions of C ran on a GE 635

I haven't seen that claimed before. Can you expand on that?

The history as I have learned is that B first ran on the PDP-7. It was
ported over to the PDP-11. B morphed into NB, and then C. The first C
was still very archaic, and was continuously updated through "typesetter
C", K&R, ANSI C, etc.

I understand B also was ported to the GE 635 at some point, but I'm not
sure where or when. Steve Johnson (of Yacc fame) brought it to
Universty of Waterloo, which spun off the Thinkage Ltd, still in
business, to support B.

On 2023-07-03 20:35, Bill E wrote:
> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice. What did I use it for? Well, of course, MazeWars with those nifty Imlacs. The real sw I did was on the Multics machine, totally different. On the 10, I really hated EMACS, loved TECO. The Xerox XGP printer showed up at the same time, mostly locally famous for being quite temperamental and absurdly expensive. So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10? The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but having to use Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.
> BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame. If I'm not just writing some text document, I use VIM.

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with some things here.

First of all, EMACS it is. Still...

But I remember quite a lot of languages available for the PDP-10.
Including C, in the form of KCC. BASIC, LISP, PROLOG, FORTRAN, COBOL,
PASCAL, BLISS, and god knows what else. I'm sure the list can go on for
quite a while...

And VI have no relation to TECO at all, as far as I know. And I do not
like VI at all. Never have. VIM is probably a great improvement, but
still not my cup of tea.

Johnny

Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>On 2023-07-03 20:35, Bill E wrote:
>> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice. What did I use it for? Well, of course, MazeWars with those nifty Imlacs. The real sw I did was on the Multics machine, totally different. On the 10, I really hated EMACS, loved TECO. The Xerox XGP printer showed up at the same time, mostly locally famous for being quite temperamental and absurdly expensive. So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10? The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but having to use Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.
>> BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame. If I'm not just writing some text document, I use VIM.
>
>Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with some things here.
>
>First of all, EMACS it is. Still...
>
>But I remember quite a lot of languages available for the PDP-10.
>Including C, in the form of KCC. BASIC, LISP, PROLOG, FORTRAN, COBOL,
>PASCAL, BLISS, and god knows what else. I'm sure the list can go on for
>quite a while...
>
>And VI have no relation to TECO at all, as far as I know. And I do not
>like VI at all. Never have. VIM is probably a great improvement, but
>still not my cup of tea.

Whereas I'd take vim (or even vi) over EMACS any day.

Depends on what you learned first, I suspect. For me, that
was the editor that came with TSS8.24 on the PDP-8, followed by EDIT/3000 (HP)
and later EDT (with the gold key) on VMS, ed on unix, then vi,
and finally vim which I still use every day.

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-7, Bill E wrote:
> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice.

My editor of choice on the ‘10 was emacs, which I’ve been using constantly since 1976. My programming language of choice was (and still is) MacLisp although recently I’ve been coding a bunch in Muddle (MDL). I, too, started on ITS and Multics — and still use both daily, with emulators, of course. ITS MacLisp has support for making system calls, so one doesn’t need to resort to Midas and MACRO, unless you need efficiency in space and speed.

According to Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>:
>John Levine wrote:
>> We used a locally written screen editor based on the RAND editor. It
>> was much less powerful than emacs but also a lot faster and more
>> predictable.
>
>Maybe that would be E? It keeps coming up when I read about text editor
>history.

That was it. We reimplemented it on a PDP-11 running 7th edition Unix,
on our GEM bitmapped terminals. The terminal emulator ran on a separate PDP-11/05
where I added a hack to do some of the character processing locally so the editor
didn't have to wake up on each keystroke.

>> The first versions of C ran on a GE 635
>
>I haven't seen that claimed before. Can you expand on that?
>
>The history as I have learned is that B first ran on the PDP-7.

I found Dennis Ritchie's history of C paper and I somewhat
misremembered. B ran on the PDP-7, but Dennis made a cross compiler to
the 635, and there were C compilers targeting the 635 and S/370 by
1973, while C was still embryonic.

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html

The 635 could handle 6 or 9 bit bytes. S/370 of course had (still has) 8 bit bytes.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

In article <0df52c36-0606-49b6-9ead-e508748b6580n@googlegroups.com>,
Bill E <wjegranite@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip] So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your
>favorite programming lang for the 10? The lang bit was at the time
>pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done,
>not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but having to use
>Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.

I've found it very useful to maintain some proficiency in a
variety of text editors for different environments, switching
between them as appropriate. On Unix, I tend to use vi/vim or,
in a pinch, `ed` (note: pronounced "E-D," not "Ed"). On the
PDP-10 or Multics, it's emacs. On Plan 9, acme and sam. On
VMS, EDT. On VM/CMS, XEDIT. On other systems, I tend towards
the "native" editor. Etc.

As far as programming languages on the PDP-10, there's only
really one choice: Lisp. :-)

- Dan C.

On 2023-07-04 17:56, John Levine wrote:
> According to Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>:
>> John Levine wrote:
>>> The first versions of C ran on a GE 635
>>
>> I haven't seen that claimed before. Can you expand on that?
>>
>> The history as I have learned is that B first ran on the PDP-7.
>
> I found Dennis Ritchie's history of C paper and I somewhat
> misremembered. B ran on the PDP-7, but Dennis made a cross compiler to
> the 635, and there were C compilers targeting the 635 and S/370 by
> 1973, while C was still embryonic.
>
> https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html

Well....

"By early 1973, the essentials of modern C were complete."

Not exactly embyonic. At this point, Unix on the PDP-11 was rewritten in
C, and the paper makes it pretty clear that the PDP-11 C compiler was
the first version.

But yeah, the GE 635 and IBM machines were the first other targets for
the C compiler, after the PDP-11.

Johnny

On 2023-07-04 16:54, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>> On 2023-07-03 20:35, Bill E wrote:
>>> My first post to this group, got here because I'm (im)patiently waiting for the Lars PDP-10 kit. I used a 10 at MIT back in the early 70's. ITS was the OS, and EMACS was the editor of choice. What did I use it for? Well, of course, MazeWars with those nifty Imlacs. The real sw I did was on the Multics machine, totally different. On the 10, I really hated EMACS, loved TECO. The Xerox XGP printer showed up at the same time, mostly locally famous for being quite temperamental and absurdly expensive. So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10? The lang bit was at the time pretty limited. I understand the issues with C and why it wasn't done, not sure it couldn't have been hacked to fit, but having to use Fortran? There was of course Lisp, but not a favorite. Sigh.
>>> BTW, my editor-of-choice even now is VIM, a direct descendant of VI, which derived a lot from TECO, just much more lame. If I'm not just writing some text document, I use VIM.
>>
>> Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with some things here.
>>
>> First of all, EMACS it is. Still...
>>
>> But I remember quite a lot of languages available for the PDP-10.
>> Including C, in the form of KCC. BASIC, LISP, PROLOG, FORTRAN, COBOL,
>> PASCAL, BLISS, and god knows what else. I'm sure the list can go on for
>> quite a while...
>>
>> And VI have no relation to TECO at all, as far as I know. And I do not
>> like VI at all. Never have. VIM is probably a great improvement, but
>> still not my cup of tea.
>
> Whereas I'd take vim (or even vi) over EMACS any day.

It is a matter of personal preferences. Which is why even asking about
it is sortof meaningless. Does it matter? Probably about as much as what
kind of tea I prefer.

> Depends on what you learned first, I suspect. For me, that
> was the editor that came with TSS8.24 on the PDP-8, followed by EDIT/3000 (HP)
> and later EDT (with the gold key) on VMS, ed on unix, then vi,
> and finally vim which I still use every day.

First exposed to is definitely one factor. Availability, features, and
ability to expand/modify are others...

Johnny

According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
>I've found it very useful to maintain some proficiency in a
>variety of text editors for different environments, switching
>between them as appropriate. On Unix, I tend to use vi/vim or,
>in a pinch, `ed` (note: pronounced "E-D," not "Ed").

I've been using it since 1975 and ed always pronounded it Ed. Who says
e-d? I know it's a cut down version of QED, which is pronounced q-e-d,
but it's still Ed. Opinions differ about whether its modern
descendeant is Vie or Vee-Eye.

If you look at the chapter on the PDP-10 in the DEC computer design
book, it says that they intended the -6 to run Fortran and Lisp
efficiently. It has floating point for Fortran, and all those halfword
instructions to do Lisp pointer arithmetic. Sort of by accident it was
good for Algol60 with the stack instructions and chained executes for
call by name.

It wasn't so great for Cobol until the KL added string and decimal
instructions but by that time I think it was too late to make much
difference.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

In article <u82opt$1u4$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
>>I've found it very useful to maintain some proficiency in a
>>variety of text editors for different environments, switching
>>between them as appropriate. On Unix, I tend to use vi/vim or,
>>in a pinch, `ed` (note: pronounced "E-D," not "Ed").
>
>I've been using it since 1975 and ed always pronounded it Ed. Who says
>e-d?

Apparently most of the folks in 1127. :-)
Here is a video where Brian Kernighan mentions it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTfOnGZUZDk

(Relevant comments are at about the 2 minute mark.)

>I know it's a cut down version of QED, which is pronounced q-e-d,
>but it's still Ed. Opinions differ about whether its modern
>descendeant is Vie or Vee-Eye.

I thought the modern descendent was called "vim". Hey-O! :-)

- Dan C.

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-7, Bill E wrote:
>
(snip)
So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite programming lang for the 10?
(snip)

For TOPS-10 in 1976, the choice was TECO or SOS.

My previous programming was done with WYLBUR, which looks a lot like SOS.
(Especially being line oriented, though some commands are surprisingly close.)

So, all my TOPS-10 editing was in SOS. If I was working with others, I would save
files without line numbers.

I didn't get to TECO until RT-11.

Most TOPS-10 programming was in Fortran, though one CS class had us do all
the assignments in ALGOL-10. By about 1979, the KA-10 was replaced with
a VAX 11/780.

Not so many years later, at a different place, it was TOPS-20, and I believe
an editor like SOS. After not so long, that one again was replaced by VAX.

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-7, Dan Cross wrote:

(snip)

> I thought the modern descendent was called "vim". Hey-O! :-)
I am writing this on a MacBook Air (with an older OS version,
as it only has 4GB RAM, and the newer ones use more.)

Seems that there is a symbolic link from vi to vim, either
part of the OS, or supplied by me.

Since 'man vi' gives the vim man page, it suggests that
it is part of the system. I have been using vi since the
SunOS 3.x days.

In the OS/2 days, I ported Stevie to OS/2 for my own
use, and a bound (OS/2 term) for MS-DOS use.
Though later, I used the Watcom vi for OS/2 and DOS.

In article <u83sih$8cn$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <u82opt$1u4$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
>>>I've found it very useful to maintain some proficiency in a
>>>variety of text editors for different environments, switching
>>>between them as appropriate. On Unix, I tend to use vi/vim or,
>>>in a pinch, `ed` (note: pronounced "E-D," not "Ed").
>>
>>I've been using it since 1975 and ed always pronounded it Ed. Who says
>>e-d?
>
>Apparently most of the folks in 1127. :-)
>Here is a video where Brian Kernighan mentions it:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTfOnGZUZDk
>
>(Relevant comments are at about the 2 minute mark.)
>
>>I know it's a cut down version of QED, which is pronounced q-e-d,
>>but it's still Ed. Opinions differ about whether its modern
>>descendeant is Vie or Vee-Eye.
>
>I thought the modern descendent was called "vim". Hey-O! :-)

I'd never heard anyone serious refer to `vi` as "vie"
so I checked in with Mary Ann Horton. She was quite
explicit that Bill Joy was quite explicit, and that it
is pronounced "vee eye", not "vye", or "six" (!!), and
that those pronunciations are wrong.

From https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=4BSD/usr/doc/ex/vi.in:

---
..FE
This document provides a quick introduction to
..I vi.
(Pronounced \fIvee-eye\fP.)
---

I suppose opinions are always a matter of personal
preference, but hearing "vie" would set one apart as
being strictly bush-league.

- Dan C.

gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> writes:

> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:35:04=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Bill E wrote:

> (snip)
> So, my questions, what is your favorite text editor and your favorite
> programming lang for the 10?=20
> (snip)

> For TOPS-10 in 1976, the choice was TECO or SOS.

When did AMIS come along?

> My previous programming was done with WYLBUR, which looks a lot like SOS.
> (Especially being line oriented, though some commands are surprisingly close.)

> So, all my TOPS-10 editing was in SOS. If I was working with others, I would
> save files without line numbers.

> I didn't get to TECO until RT-11.

> Most TOPS-10 programming was in Fortran, though one CS class had us do all
> the assignments in ALGOL-10. By about 1979, the KA-10 was replaced with
> a VAX 11/780.

> Not so many years later, at a different place, it was TOPS-20, and I believe
> an editor like SOS. After not so long, that one again was replaced by VAX.

EDIT.EXE was essentially SOS, which was adopted from SAIL by DEC. EDIT used
TOPS-20 system calls rather than Tops-10.

I mention AMIS above. When I began working on Tops-10 systems, I installed
AMIS, an EMACS clone written in (IIRC) Algol, and not extensible like EMACS.
After a while, I got comfortable enough with DEC's TECO that I stopped using
AMIS.

I considered installing FINE ("FINE Is Not EMACS") as well as AMIS, but never
got around to doing that. My friend Joe Smith was a FINE user.

--
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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
>>I've found it very useful to maintain some proficiency in a
>>variety of text editors for different environments, switching
>>between them as appropriate. On Unix, I tend to use vi/vim or,
>>in a pinch, `ed` (note: pronounced "E-D," not "Ed").
>
>I've been using it since 1975 and ed always pronounded it Ed. Who says
>e-d?

It's always been pronounced e-d for me (since 1979).

gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> writes:
>On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 6:52:19=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> I thought the modern descendent was called "vim". Hey-O! :-)=20
>=20
>I am writing this on a MacBook Air (with an older OS version,
>as it only has 4GB RAM, and the newer ones use more.)
>
>Seems that there is a symbolic link from vi to vim, either
>part of the OS, or supplied by me.

Supplied by the distribution. The program reads argv[0]
and if it is 'vi', starts in vi-compatable mode with most
extensions disabled. If it is 'view', then it also starts
read-only.