> A GUI editor can do everything a terminal based emulator can; there are lots of things a GUI editor can do that a text editor can't.
Really? I'd like to see sublime handle text manipulations with the same efficiency and precision that Vim provides.
> What is the advantage of terminal based editors? As far as I can see, ubiquity, which is made less compelling when you need a host of plugins to do the things you mention.
What about integration with the shell? It's not merely a matter of ubiquity: I don't really need a document tree when I have the entire terminal at my disposal a :sh or :wq away.
> Terminal editor enthusiasts seem to be under the effects of something like the Blub paradox, where any feature of a GUI editor described to them is dismissed with "why would I ever need that?" while anything in terminal emulator can do is considered essential.
This would be an apt description if the majority of "terminal editor enthusiasts" were as inexperienced with GUI editors as their GUI counterparts, but in fact the opposite is true. Most Vim/Emacs users tend to have hundreds of hours experience working with GUI editors, but are for some reason convinced that they (the editors) were inferior. Finally, let me give you an irrelevant (but fun) fact: PG, the original proposer of the Blub paradox, uses vi.
"Really? I'd like to see sublime handle text manipulations with the same efficiency and precision that Vim provides."
I think you've misunderstood the claim here. The claim was not that all existing GUI editors do all the things that all existing terminal editors do. The claim is that a GUI (not a GUI editor, just a GUI) can do everything a console can do, and then do more things besides.
The claim is obviously true, because a GUI can embed a terminal interface in itself, and then augment it. I use emacs that way. It's emacs, but it also can do buttons, menus, proportional fonts, etc. (... not that I use any of those things, but it can), and all sorts of things it can't do in terminal mode even though it's literally the same executable. The point is that the GUI environment is intrinsically more flexible because the GUI has a superset of capabilities, not that a traditionally-GUI-centric design with heavy mouse and menu usage is superior.
Your first two points are simply features, and there is no reason they can't be implemented for GUI editors. In fact they are available for many of them.
The anecdotal suggestion that people who prefer a GUI simply don't know what they are talking about is just pure snobbery. I know both and I still prefer a GUI. You're right that the appeal to the authority of PG on this subject is irrelevant.
Really? I'd like to see sublime handle text manipulations with the same efficiency and precision that Vim provides.
> What is the advantage of terminal based editors? As far as I can see, ubiquity, which is made less compelling when you need a host of plugins to do the things you mention.
What about integration with the shell? It's not merely a matter of ubiquity: I don't really need a document tree when I have the entire terminal at my disposal a :sh or :wq away.
> Terminal editor enthusiasts seem to be under the effects of something like the Blub paradox, where any feature of a GUI editor described to them is dismissed with "why would I ever need that?" while anything in terminal emulator can do is considered essential.
This would be an apt description if the majority of "terminal editor enthusiasts" were as inexperienced with GUI editors as their GUI counterparts, but in fact the opposite is true. Most Vim/Emacs users tend to have hundreds of hours experience working with GUI editors, but are for some reason convinced that they (the editors) were inferior. Finally, let me give you an irrelevant (but fun) fact: PG, the original proposer of the Blub paradox, uses vi.