The problem is that you naively assume you can compile things on your
desktop that you can your remote server. For me, that's almost never the
case, as no desktop or laptop has the hardware that a supercomputer has.


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Steven Degutis <sbdegutis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any time I find myself editing files on a remote server, it's because
> I stupidly didn't prepare for the task properly and have to fix
> something "live". This is never a planned situation, and one I should
> really be avoiding rather than catering to. And in those rare times
> that I still find myself editing remote files, the server usually only
> has vim anyway, which gets the job done. This isn't a legitimate
> reason to have terminal support in a text editor that you use on a
> daily basis on your local GUI-enabled desktop.
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:
> > Steven Degutis wrote:
> >> What's the use-case for having the terminal be able to act as an editor?
> >> ...
> >> Seems like there's no real point in supporting terminal-mode in a text
> >> editor these days.
> >
> > I use emacs in a terminal all of the time every day.  How else are you
> > going to edit files while logged into a remote server?
> >
> > If emacs didn't support the text terminal anymore, something that it
> > has done since the beginning, then it could hardly be called emacs
> > anymore could it?  It would then be something different.  Like
> > gtk-emacs or something.  Which is fine.  But if emacs weren't
> > available to edit files would you expect we would use vi?  Horrors!
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>