I'm trying to read the source to this on it's codeplex page, but don't seem to be able to scroll down... http://fuv.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/9e0aaba... I had no idea people even used codeplex, and seeing this, I have to wonder why anyone would.
I love the command line, but I find this to be hair-shirted fetishization of the command-line aesthetic.
If we're to have an advance in programmer's editors, what we really need are more powerful and convenient ways of dealing with our working sets. By working sets, I mean working sets of definitions, methods, classes -- code entities and not files.
Right now, we're fudging this using virtual screens, multiple screens, groupings of windows, working sets in git/Mercurial, tabs, buffers, code folding, etc... The only tool I've seen that deals directly and cleanly with working sets is code bubbles.
That looks nice, if Eclipse is your thing. What about a lightweight tool that's an add-on to vim that deals directly with working sets? What about a Textmate-like editor on OS X with explicit working set support? (This should be integrated with code folding, so that you can quickly delineate a working set, save it, then later restore it, with only the entities in the working set unfolded.)
It reads like a joke from somebody too young to remember ed. Vi/m minus the insert mode leaves you with ed/ex, and a lot of serious programming has been done with those.
2) You might look into making comments that have better relevance to the posts and comments you're replying to. Doubly so if you don't find them interesting.
Why are you using the venue of comments on a parody of just that "command-line aesthetic" (well, as much as old-school text editor UIs are "command lines") to ramble on about this topic?
If at any time you think to yourself, "Gee, I wish [vim/emacs] could do [foo]", then you should rejoice, for you now know that you have some more learning to do.
On the side, good joke!