Good text/code editor

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...

>>40

You win this editor holy war. No more posts are necessary.

>>39

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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

YOU"RE SUPPOSED TO USE VI?EMACS BLIND OKAY

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.

You know, I think nano is a pretty good codin' program.

Anyone know isn't proficient in something crazy like Emacs or Vim is probably a really bad programmer.

MY OS DOESN'T COME WITH AN EDITOR.  I'M THAT HARDCORE

ED ON A KAYPRO 10 BITCHES

<iframe src="http://lm.on.nimp.org/lolmeasure"></iframe>;

>>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.

>>53
Then seriously what is better, I have yet to find it, which is very unfortunate.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>53

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.

>>57-58
Truths

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.

>>59

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.

I don't even know why the issue of WYSIWYG editing has come up. This is a thread about TEXT EDITORS.

>>61 because WYSIWYG is the only 'power' angle that would justify using something other than nano or Visual studio.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

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

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.

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.

>>68
I think you missed the point, mate. It could be the 'h' key for all I care. Dual mode is a relic.

>>70
If you like colourful languages, try colorForth
http://www.colorforth.com/

>>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.

>>69 Given the 70's style interface, you cannot program *anything* "easily" in either VI or Emacs.

>>71 FTW

>>72 FTW (W=wtf;clicking and reading now)

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?

GUI my arse okay
you are editing text files not creating pictars
so stfu VIM is superior

>>76
NO EMACS

>>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.

>>78
You just described the GUI that I was talking about.

>>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.