Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lio | Hacker News Reader

This is probably a laughably silly question but what features does WordStar have that I wouldn't get from a good text editor like Vim, a markup language (markdown, RST, AsciiDoc, etc) and a copy of Pandoc?

Would someone who's keen on WordStar mind giving it a modern sales pitch for those of us that love terminal based software?

View on HN

The page with the download¹ has a long essay about the benefits of WordStar. An example:

> WordPerfect requires that I decide whether I want to cut or copy a block, then immediately mark the beginning of the block, then immediately mark the end of the block, then immediately position the cursor at where I want the block to go, then immediately move the block, and then find my way back to the place where I was originally working. From the moment I decide I might, perhaps, want to do something with a block of text to the moment I actually finish that operation, WordPerfect is in control, dictating what I must do.

> WordStar, with its long-hand-page metaphor, says, hey, do whatever you want whenever you want to. This is a good spot to mark the beginning of a block? Fine. What would you like to do next? Deal with the block? Continue writing? Use the thesaurus?

> After another half hour of writing, I can say, ah hah!, this is where I want to end that block. And two hours later I can say, and this is where that block should go.

¹: https://sfwriter.com/wordstar.htm

Hopefully, this composition mechanic could be implemented in existing tools.

With VIM:

  ma
  Now do what ever you'd like.
  v`a

The shortcut "ma" sets mark 'a', and "v`a" selects from whereever you are to mark 'a'.

Similar to nano vs vi, I'd say.

I have wonderful memories of WordStar but today I cannot stand using nano (it's in fact one of the first things I uninstall and define vi as the default editor).

If you used it from the start, as I did, you would have the muscle memory to compose and edit world class literature, at light speed, and preview with a vague semblance to the printed version on your terminal.

As far as editing C under System V Unix, it would never compare to the power of vi, cribbed from a BSD machine and recompiled by a bootstrapped C compiler and a home made termcap file.

Familiarity? Ability to control a daisy wheel or dot matrix printer? A workable keyboard-only interface for selecting and moving text?

It's very much a program of its time. Interesting as an historical artifact, and maybe there's someone somewhere who has their academic work on floppies would be glad of this.

Ages ago I set up a XyVision compositor w/ a set of installation disks for XyWrite when that was made freely available since the keyboard shortcuts were completely habitual.

I use very old software (mainly Win95) to practise usability. Those companies spend millions on usability studies and accessibility.

If you've never used vim, markup language and pandoc then it's a big upfront investment. Also keep in mind that the people listed that use WordStar have worked with it for literally decades. If you've worked with Vim for decades, what would it take for you to move to an alternative?

Good thought. Familiarity and muscle memory are a big asset. As a long time emacs user, I feel the same about my tool of choice. It's not always about being the absolute best tool there is, but about being one that you know inside and out - you no longer need to spend a lot of time figuring out how to do something, you can just do it.

This is, indeed, a silly question.

But why use that whole stack when you should be using LaTeX?

But why use LaTeX when you should be using Typst?

And why use Typst when you should be using Org-mode?

Jokes aside, those formats all have their pros and cons. For me at least, Typst is not yet a usable alternative for neither academic publishing nor serious typesetting in general.

But I love the MarkDown-like syntax with TeX-like equation support and fast compile times, and am considering it for a mathy personal knowledge base. Similarly to how I’ve been using tools like Org-mode and Obsidian over the past few years.

In a few years it might be usable for professional use given how fast it’s evolving, but academia is conservative and I’d expect more journals to support LaTeX3 if it’s ever released.

> but academia is conservative

There is a whole set of interlocking organizations supporting the TeX ecosystem, such that no one can claim ownership of it. It truly is owned by its community. Typst, with its pay-for-play online offerings, keeps a tight grip around the open-source project of Typst. I don't see how academia ever switches from its own albeit complex ecosystem, to a corporate-owned project.

Basically just less set up time. But if you’re able to ask that question then this answer wouldn’t apply to you.

Do you really think everyone would like to spend the effort setting up such a stack?

AFAIK there are markdown/asciidoc editors that allow you to edit text with these markup language and producing pdf/html documents without "setting up a stack".

Honestly I don’t know what other people want.

I’m genuinely interested in old software like WordStar as it was well known when I was growing up.

If it’s not something that appeals to you then you’re well catered for with well known GUI applications.

I personally already use Vim and pandoc hence the comparison.

None.

Also, try Helix if you like Vim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com