Hey
What's a good code/text editor? Something like notepad but that highlights html code, strings etc. And I don't want it to choke on big files like notepad does...
I love SlickEdit. It's completely customizable, it really is a text editor for programmers who just need a text editor.
Costs money though, but I am not regretting my investment one bit. You can even code the interface to do whatever you want. Supports regex too I think, so you can potentially do some really powerful things.
Temptation to flame my way into an editor holy war... rising...
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-11 16:55
ED
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-12 20:02
ED is the standard text editor.
Name:
Edward2005-04-13 4:34
I always though pico was today's standard text editor.
They're all fairly similar in simplicity anyway.
>>11
Subethatedit is indeed a very, very cool editor with many features, including the very cool network editing one. However it's OS X only, is it not? It's fine for me, but I doubt it interests everyone here. Not a bad idea mentioning it though.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-04-13 5:09
I use nano (or pico, I forget which) mostly when I want to paste in a bunch of code I found on a webpage or something and I don't want vim to mess it up by autoindenting. For actually editing I use vim. I believe it was actually voted best editor by... someone... according to the web site.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-13 16:51
ED, ED, ED! ED GIVES YOU STRENGTH! STRENGTH CRUSHES ENEMIES! ED!
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-04-13 17:27
I think my ed is broken. I fired it up and... well here:
[jesus@neonatix ~]$ ed
hello
?
what
?
read my input bitch
?
^[[A
?
?
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-14 4:58
Ah, good old ed
Name:
No. 12005-04-14 10:06
Actually I wanted Windows editors, but never mind I got Cream and it seems good.
I would say for Windows you could search around for commerical applications or freeware that suite your needs well enough.. How ever it would really be worth it to grab gvim or xemacs and learn how to use them.. It will help you use anything in the long run.. Plus the amount of scriptability/customizability of the editors is fantastic.
Name:
abez!XWEgiX8ArQ2005-06-20 21:43
emacs or gvim
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-21 4:01
gvim: meh
emacs: ugh
I always wondered why it took so many decades for the *nix people to make a decent editor; by decent I mean "not limited to what a poor man's crappy terminal can do", using standard+customizable keys, supporting modern editor features, and just not being so half-assed as most Unix tools and applications (not the OS) are.
And now they have such editor - Kate. Why not using such a fine piece of software?
Because it's more efficient. Sure, you could reach for the mouse and search the menus for that one function you're looking for. Sure, you can press the left arrow-key to the end of the line, and press Enter to add a new one. Or, you can do the same thing in gvim/emacs in seconds with a few keystrokes. (Of course you can search the menus as well, if that's how you enjoy working, both emacs and gvim has menus)
Anyways, vim/gvim > everything.
Why? because of the shortcuts and the general efficiency of it. Of course you need to spend a little time setting up the config file, but once you've done that, you'll never return to kate or any other editor.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-22 10:10
vi is a wonderful editor when you just want to make a quick change to a system file. VIM, however, is a bloated sack of shit. Emacs is just crap, period.
once you need to do more than add a line to a file (say, if you need to cut and paste words or lines) then you want nano.
If what you want is an IDE, then Ajunta is the best choice for unix systems (with visual studio being the best one for windows).
VIM and Emacs are for pretentious gasbags.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-22 10:26
You know what's great about Unix? You don't need an IDE because the system is an IDE.
Personally I think nano is good for making quick changes, but when I want to make more extensive changes I switch to vim because I can do it faster.
I've been meaning to try emacs so I can flame emacs users without having to lie when people ask if I actually know what I'm talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-22 16:55
>>30 Sure, you could reach for the mouse and search the menus for that one function you're looking for
I rarely do that in UltraEdit. I have key bindings. ANY key bindings. Standard key bindings used in other programs, plus my own. I don't have to type ESC, d, $, a to delete all to the end of the line. I just type Ctrl+K. And so on. Frequent tasks get shorter, easier to remember keys. Similar tasks get similar keys. And since it's not Unix, I can freely use virtually all keys on my 102-key keyboard.
Oh, and before you mention it, yes, UltraEdit has customizable highlighting, bracket matching, regular expression search and replace, several clipboards, bookmarks, immediate search (like emacs), code folding, autocompletion, columns mode and column operation (including arithmetic), binary safe hexadecimal editor, large file disk-based editing, text formatting, macros, plain text config, Unicode and CRLF conversion, grep, external apps binding, shell, and many other features. All that while maintaining user-friendly, fast, standard, fully-functional keys, and being notably smaller and faster than Kate. You can also have menus and toolbars - fully customizable ones, although I don't use them.
you can press the left arrow-key to the end of the line, and press Enter to add a new one
LOL. You've been using old Unix for too long. There's an End key there. End+Enter is all you need. Still easier than exiting editing mode and all that crap.
>>32 You don't need an IDE because the system is an IDE
Cliche. You can't browse a class hierarchy with tail and grep, can you?
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-22 18:40
>>33
Age for truth. the whole point of an IDE is to have your tools together, in one place, functioning in an automatic manner.
I'm just learning programming, so I don't know what it's like to work with a large project (I'm sure it's different), but for small projects I really like Anjuta. Of course for a large project you're going to want something better than find . -name *c -exec grep foo \{}; (Or is it "-exec (grep foo) \{};"? another argument for autmation -- you don't have to keep track of a bunch of CLI arcana).
Still easier than exiting editing mode and all that crap.
End+Enter also works in editing mode, no need to exit.
Btw, do "set insertmode" to "use Vim as a modeless editor.".
Frequent tasks get shorter, easier to remember keys
like "imap <c-k> <esc>d$a" to delete all to the end of the line while in insert mode =o?
I can freely use virtually all keys on my 102-key keyboard.
me too.
the problem is that vim was developed with functionality in mind, not usability. you have to manually adjust it to your needs.
i have some really small-scale projects i'm working on and vim worked fine for these so far. if i need to see a list of active buffers and a file- or taglist, "winmanager" (http://vim.sourceforge.net/scripts/script.php?script_id=95) proved to be useful. oh yeah, the "quickfix" feature of vim is also neat: the errorlog of the compiler/unittest-thingy/interpreter is saved to a buffer which allows you to jump directly to the error with one keystroke and fix it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-23 9:59
the problem is that vim was developed with functionality in mind, not usability. you have to manually adjust it to your needs.
I don't want to get a Ph.D. in Unix Editors and spend a week getting them to be half decent before I can edit php.ini. Especially when I can just use Kate or UltraEdit, which are, by default, quite good, and have a linear learning curve - you can start using them right away, and learn all the advanced features like column operations as you use and need them.
The first time you want something, you'll take a look at the menus. If it's a rare feature you won't be using, it'll be more productive to do so. If you find it useful, you'll see which key is it associated with and memorize it - or define your own if it sucks or there isn't any.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-23 10:06
>>34
BTW, that's more easily done with my Ptools. I should release them some day. If I undestood that command correctly, I can do that with: pl c$ | doforall grep -f !! foo
They are meant to extend your shell with all sorts of regex-based gadgets, including but not limiting to regex-based globbing, recursive globbing, reverse quotes for any shell that doesn't support them, stdin/stdout handling (you can build 2D pipes which join and fork into more pipes!), access to HTTP, FTP, etc. resources as files and send them to a pipe, integrating PHP functions, listing files, processing file lists, and more.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-23 17:22
lol who said emacs didn't have a help system or menus.
Really most of you are just arguing anything more complex than just typing text and using the mouse to highlight text is all you need.
And you keep making the assumption that guy_who_doesn't_like_your_favorite_editor = luser who needs half of what Notepad does.
I'm not a luser, and I hate mice for editing. I don't waste my time with that when I can select with the keyboard in several ways, usually faster than you would do in VIM (with or without Visual Mode).
lol why so offended brah. You use the key commands because you demand more from your editor than notepad. You're obviously not one of those who hate freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 22:24
I'm sure a lot of us can agree that all editors suck. I don't think I've ever used an editor that I didn't dislike in some way. Either they're plain weak, or they're unusable, or contain hilariously braindead design decisions.
Flame: vi variants and emacs suck pretty bad, even for editors. Get out of the stoneage.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 23:41
>>43 I agree; that's why (even for it's limits) I like 'trolling' the vi/emacs discussions by sticking up for nano.
In all seriousness both emacs AND vi are dated and retarded given what we know now about what makes a good UI and what we have available. vi WAS great for it's day, but its' day was 25 years ago.
The only arguments for either emacs or vi is the power user angle. But niether one can do WYSIWYG word processing, and as far as development enviroments go there are much better (eg visual studio).
If you're just editing text files, you don't need all the arcana of vi/emacs; if you want WYSIWYG word processing neither vi/emacs will cut it; if you want a development enviroment, they can be shoe-horned into working as one; but there are far, far better ones out there which take advantage of modern UI techniques.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:07
>>44
Try writing a book with MS Word. Try laying something out with MS Word. Fact: the goals of the user are often very complex and thus some complexity will have to be accepted.
By modern UI techniques you mean, UIs for idiots.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:07
YOU"RE SUPPOSED TO USE VI?EMACS BLIND OKAY
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:09
You shouldn't use VI or EMACS if you don't get it. If you can't take it, stay out of the kitchen. We still reserve the right to make fun of you just because you can't cut it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:16
You know, I think nano is a pretty good codin' program.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:31
Anyone know isn't proficient in something crazy like Emacs or Vim is probably a really bad programmer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 1:31
MY OS DOESN'T COME WITH AN EDITOR. I'M THAT HARDCORE
>>47
What about those of us who can use both vi or emacs with our eyes closed and half asleep, yet still dislike both of them?
Why do people protect vi and emacs so religiously? They're just tools, and mediocre ones at that. This is pretty pathetic.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 4:27
>>53
Then seriously what is better, I have yet to find it, which is very unfortunate.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 4:29
>>53
The point is the current direction of IDEs is intolerable and disgusting. They support activities we rarely do at the click of a button but ignore activities we commonly do (typing). At least things like emacs and vim focus on the lowest level so we can at least get by. Oh and don't get started about auto-complete because it exists in both emacs and vim and everyone's favorite IDEs.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 4:51
>>55
So what? Most GUI IDEs suck, it's true. That doesn't change that vi and emacs are mediocre.
>>54
It depends what you want to do. For general administration purposes, a vi variant is probably the best available. Doesn't change that it sucks.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 8:01
>>45 That may or may not be true about word, but word is MUCH better suited for writing a book than is Emacs or Vi. In fact, if Word isn't suitable, then using vi would be a joke!
>>55 If you can't "get by" in an IDE, then you have some serious problems. For all of their shortcomings (none of which I see, btw, but concedeing for the sake of argument) they are still vastly superior to *both* emacs and vi.
emacs and vi are cludgy and fucked up; it's time to relegate them to the trash heap of history, where they rightly belong.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 11:12 (sage)
I'm just waiting for someone to inevitably say that the best way to word-process is to use latex with vi. Or even better: all true hax0rs write rich text with ed.
Agreed. I can use VI (never bothered to learn Emacs since VI worked and was widely available - all I needed for terminals), but I'd rather have a kick in the balls than edit code with it, when I can use something better.
VI and Emacs are just another terribly outdated, mediocre, quarter century old Unix tools. We've programmed better shit since. Get over it.
I don't get why some geeks insist on defending ancient tools just because they're ancient, or perhaps, just because they make them look geekier (which would be false geekdom, as true geeks don't need to do anything on purpose to look geek).
I'm not saying ancient stuff is bad. I'm still using Norton Commander-like file managers and you'd have to see how fast can I do anything with them (especially FAR). I don't like Explorer, Konqueror, or all that crap that's almost for kids. I don't find Explorer comfortable and quick enough with keyboards, just like I don't find VI comfortable and quick enough with keyboards.
How about you tell us what is supposedly better than Vi or Emacs. Also the age of something doesn't make it outdated, just recently MacOSX inherited tonnes of code with a very long lineage.
How is VIM (not VI) not quick enough with the keyboard. Everyone else who uses VIM is saying it is fast, then you say it isn't, we'ren saying it fast due to text navigation, fast searches, mode based editting etc, you have provided no evidence of another editor or that VIM is slow.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-06-26 14:53
I don't even know why the issue of WYSIWYG editing has come up. This is a thread about TEXT EDITORS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 15:28
>>61 because WYSIWYG is the only 'power' angle that would justify using something other than nano or Visual studio.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 15:35
>>60 it's not the age; it's the interface. The interface for both Emacs and Vi suck shit. We've made great strides in usability that simply have left emacs and vi in the dust.
Sorry, the mindset that something is 'for dummies' just because it's easy to use is retarded. The easier something is to use, the more productive you are, the more enjoyment you can get out of the task you're trying to do -- instead of trying to remember is it meta-ctrl-a-k or is it esc v-wr4xw.
Vi and emacs both get in the way of what you try to do, which is what sucks about them. We've progressed to where we have tools which are both powerful *and* easy to use.
It's time, as I said before, to relegate vi and emacs to the dustbin.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 18:04
>>60
All I can say is I know VIM's commands, yet I'm not as fast with them; first because I have to do extra keystrokes to enter/exit retarded modes, second because the keys are all distributed over the keyboard (you can't move with your right hand and search, cut, paste, etc. with your left), third because in my keyboard stuff like / means an extra keystroke (Shift+), fourth because the way you have to think is not nice, fifth because keys follow no logic (example: I'm moving word by word forwards; get to where I want, then want to advance a couple characters; in VI that's a completely different key; in decent editors you just release Control without even moving your right hand). And probably more reasons I forgot right now.
You want examples? Ultra Edit is my favorite editor. Visual Studio is another good one. Kate is not bad at all. There are a bunch of editors using the same control as ConTEXT which I don't like as much as Ultra Edit yet they're still much better than VI.
>>61
Well, WYSIWYG helps, but I'm talking about text editors nonetheless. These editors are far better than VI or Emacs not only because they are WYSIWYG.
>>63 The easier something is to use, the more productive you are, the more enjoyment you can get out of the task you're trying to do
That's exactly what I think. I'm getting paid to work, not to remember witty commands on ancient, mediocre editors. And when I'm back home, I have a limited amount of free time in which I want to get my stuff done as fast as I can, without wasting my time on configuring and studying ancient, mediocre editors just because they're coo- they're ol- they're Uni-... well, just because.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 19:12
vi and emacs are at opposite extremes.
I've heard people defend vi's dual mode, but it's empirically poor: I've watched how often I have to hit esc (way up there in never-never land), and it's all the time. It's faster than reaching for a mouse, but it's a shitload slower than ctrl- or alt- whatever, which is what most sane editors now use.
On the other hand, emacs is far at the other extreme. Multi-key combinations for everything. A lot of them are completely counter-intuitive too.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-26 23:27
>>65 Wrong. Vi and emacs *are an* extreme. Both are ancient technology (both dating from the 70's) which use outdated UI models to accomplish basic tasks (eg vi's command/edit mode).
I've been using *nix for a number of years, and I can navigate vi; but it's still inferior to the alternatives that are out there.
Name:
652005-06-27 2:07
>>66
In regards to opposite extremes, I meant the use of modifier keys (control, alt, shift, etc). One uses none, the other uses too many. I'm not talking about CLI/GUI or what not.
If you don't mean that, then I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. Both posts are essentially saying the same thing.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-27 2:13
So basically what I am hearing is you guys don't know how to configure your keyboard (esc in nevernever land).
lol rebind capslock to esc
lol rebind keys to the keys you want to use
lol just because you are incompetent and still incompetent proves nothing other than your continuous incompetentcy
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-27 2:24
Ultra Edit - Can I jump words? Can I use visual blocks? Can not hold down a modifier to navigate? Can I jump to line numbers in less 2+n keystrokes (where n is the number of digits in the number). Can I start searching for a word I am currently hovering over with 1 key?
Visual Studio -text editing? Code editing.. ok.. but but but but can I navigate via the keyboard effectively? Can I vertical edit? Can I modify square blocks of text effeciently? Can I code in OCaml, Perl, Python, Ruby, Smalltalk, 4th, C, C++, Java easily in it?
Kate - uh come on now, it doesn't have hardly anyfeatures, no vertical editing.
See the problem here is there are a group of people who know what Vim and Emacs actually are then the vast majority here simply don't.
Name:
jdcrunchman2005-06-27 3:19
I was talking to my rep over lunch today and he was telling me about how great Visual Studio is. I tried it and I must say that it is wonderful.. It is truly incredible how many colors our modern programming languages use. We both agree that Microsoft's product cannot be beat and that all these other "editors", lacking colors, are useless and will die soon.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-27 6:45
>>68
I think you missed the point, mate. It could be the 'h' key for all I care. Dual mode is a relic.
>>68
I've heard of people wasting entire days of their lives on configuring and programming editors like Emacs. Why should I waste my time like that? I don't want to program an editor. I want to use somebody else's.
>>69
You obviously never used it, so you shouldn't be talking about it.
Jump words: Of course. Default is Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right, which comes in handy as you're always using your right hand, and not moving it (hold/release Ctrl as you must).
Visual blocks: LOL, it'd be a piece of shit if you couldn't!
Not hold down a modifier to navigate: You can (by playing with key bindings a little), although I don't know why would you want that. If you want a state-based editor, gb2/vi or gb2/s&m :)
Jump to line numbers: Of course. I think it's Ctrl+G by default; bind it to F<something> if you use it often.
Search on word: Of course. Also does incremental search, BTW.
Visual Studio: I haven't used it that much, I just checked it didn't suck, but I ended up using Ultra Edit. (You can do all you asked for Visual Studio in Ultra Edit, and you can probably do it in VS too.)
>>70
1. You're implying we say it's good because it's Microsoft's. What a kiddy, fanboyish stance.
2. You're picking on syntax highlighting as if it were a bad thing - or maybe you want to make your editors' limited syntax highlighting a feature from a lack of it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-27 13:03
>>69 Given the 70's style interface, you cannot program *anything* "easily" in either VI or Emacs.
In ultraedit can you change the last characters of each line without using a regex and do X lines at the similar cost of 1 line.
fags
gays
faggots
fags;
gays;
faggots;
also can you take multiple lines and insert rectangles of text inside
fags -> int fags() { return fags; }
faggots -> int faggots(){ return faggots; }
gays -> int gays() { return gays; }
without resorting regexes?
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-28 5:39
GUI my arse okay
you are editing text files not creating pictars
so stfu VIM is superior
>>76
What GUI are you talking about? All Ultra-Edit does is offer you fully customizable menus and toolbars (like GVIM, only way better), which you may or may not use because you can bind absolutely anything of that to keys.
Of course, the editor itself runs on GDI. That is done to allow for any font and font size, any color and any number of simultaneous colors, vertical cursor, smooth scrolling, and other features, regardless of if you use menus and toolbars or not.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-28 8:35
>>78
You just described the GUI that I was talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-28 9:19
>>76 >>77
This is what editor holy wars are supposed to be about. None of this lame n00b ass "Ultraedit" whatever crap.
Emacs or Vi: pick one and fight for your life.
lol notice how you faggots haven't been able to prove you can do vertical editing effeciently.
>>78
emacs and VIM do everything you list there. USE GVIM or a Graphical Emacs. Big Whoop.
Also Emacs can read your email and let you chat on IRC while browsing the interweb.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-28 20:33
You mean two windows side-by-side? Can't most editors do that?
Emacs can read your email and let you chat on IRC while browsing the interweb.
Who gives a shit. What a stupid gimmick for an editor.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-29 0:13
no I don't mean 2 editors side by side, I mean editing VECTORS of textdata. In Emacs it is called rectangular editing, in Vim you enter visual mode.
Vim's visual mode is better than emacs rectangular editing.
They allow you to take the operations from one line of text and repeat it across multiple, visually.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-29 0:14
no I don't mean 2 editors side by side, I mean editing VECTORS of textdata. In Emacs it is called rectangular editing, in Vim you enter visual mode.
Vim's visual mode is better than emacs rectangular editing.
They allow you to take the operations from one line of text and repeat it across multiple, visually.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-30 1:21
also can you take multiple lines and insert rectangles of text inside fags -> int fags() { return fags; } faggots -> int faggots(){ return faggots; } gays -> int gays() { return gays; }
> without resorting regexes?
vi can do that
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-30 2:08
There's no debating the power behind that. How about a better interface though?
I can have the most powerful computer in the world at my fingertips, but I doubt I'd enjoy it much if the only interface available was a teletype.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-30 3:20
To the original poster: vim 4 lyfe
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-30 15:44
>>88
Nobody gets what the fuck you mean by "interface" okay
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-30 21:54 (sage)
>>90
Now that's stupid. Look in a dictionary or jargon file if you're so dense.
Or reread the thread. Everyone who dislikes vi is bitching about the same thing.
EXPLAIN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING IDEA OF A GOOD GUI. STOP PUSSY FOOTING EXPLAIN IT. WE'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED MODE EDITING AND VERTICAL EDITING IT IS NOW YOUR JOB TO FUCKING EXPRESS YOUR IDEAS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-02 7:21 (sage)
I don't have to. Go attend Logic and Argumention 101.
hai2u guys, no gui r better cus im used to it okay
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-03 17:49
hai2u guyz, evry day iz JeffK
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-03 23:32
The reason why you faggots can't explain what a good gui consists of is because you don't know and you're just arguing about shit that you are used to rather than shit you actually know.
loaf oh guys remember to sage when you've totally lost the ability to communicate event further.
EVEN BETTER REFERENCE LOGIC AND MAKE AD HOMINEN REMARKS ABOUT THE OTHER POSTERS RATHER THAN DEAL WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL TOPIC AT HAND: YOUR TOTAL LACK OF REQUIREMENTS FOR A GOOD GUI
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-04 3:20 (sage)
EVEN BETTER REFERENCE LOGIC AND MAKE AD HOMINEN REMARKS
lol
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-04 3:21
I'm not especially fond of GUIs and don't use them for editing, but I still go for editors like UltraEdit, not to use buttons and menus and waste my time with mice, but because the editor doesn't suck like VI[M] or Emacs, i.e. it's more powerful and more easily used.
I'm stunned at your powerful reasoning. You really are hardcore, and now I can see how VIM is better than any editor from this century. You have convinced me.
>>107
lurk moar.
the date is from 2005, back then we didn't have any IDs.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 8:28 ID:eD830DYp
At some point not long ago (2-3 months), some faggot decided to fuck with world4ch one more time (as if it hadn't been fucked up with enough in the past), and added IDs to make trolling harder.