C#

General consensus on C#, /prog/

Microsoft Visual Studio's interface feels so kiddy. It's like Microsoft Word for Programmers.

I appreciate the features of the C# language.

>>40
yes

>>40
I'd use Kate if you catch my drift.

>>40
I use Kate. It's nice, keys can be fully, painlessly customized, it can be made to support CUA (and does by default) instead of some piss old, completely retarded convention, (by editing config and session files) it can be uncluttered to the point it's like Kwrite with several files (I get rid of all the bullshit toolbars and panes wasting visual space), and it's powerful enough to do the job. Even if I theoretically *could* get pretty-emacs to work like this, it'd take two life expectancies to reach that; if I'm going to use emacs and make it not suck as it horribly does by default, I might as well write my own editor; it's going to be faster and lots of fun.

My issues with it are that it lacks better script integration, and that I have to add scripts to duplicate lines and move lines above and below. I would also like Ctrl+Up/Down to move the cursor as well as the screen.

>>44
Note: "My issues with it" [with Kate]

>>44
Wow, that's a pretty huge list of things you have to do to Kate. Should have just used Emacs.

>>46
Should have just used Emacs.
qft

>>46-47
Even if I theoretically *could* get pretty-emacs to work like this, it'd take two life expectancies to reach that; if I'm going to use emacs and make it not suck as it horribly does by default, I might as well write my own editor; it's going to be faster and lots of fun.

All I did to Kate was to unclutter the UI and to write three 6 line Perl scripts that use DCOP to do what I need, then I bind them to keys in Kate's config.

In that time, I could have got emacs to... stop to annoy me with the way it handles lines and cursor movement, perhaps. Key bindings would take twice as much, and I guess they'd still suck. Colours, another day. And who knows what else's waiting for me in emacs config; I spent an hour swimming through its immense universe of options and I ran away scared.

>>37 wtf

edit.com >>>> anything

correct if wrong but edit.com links to qbasic.exe (edit.exe was the standalone version until msdos 4 or 5 when microsoft realised the redundancy slash moved from gwb to qb) and any educated computer user knows that qbasic.exe is BEST FUCKING THING EVER

>>49
The funny thing is EDIT.COM is still there in Vista.  Still says it's the "MS-DOS Editor."  Even has the 1995 copyright date.

>>49
edit.com didn't exist until MS-DOS 5, it was a stub that started QBasic until MS-DOS 7, when they introduced the standalone version.
it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't add 9000 blank lines to the end of any file I edit with it. >_>

I wish they had ported edit.com and edlin.exe over to Vista x64. It would have been a much better use of their time than implementing the shitfest that is UAC.

>>52
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox_and_Vista

>>49-51
Yeah, there are two editors by the name of "MS-DOS Editor". The one that was just a stub was rather awful, being limited to 255-byte-long lines and only being able to edit files that fit into lower memory. The standalone is a lot better -- it adds binary mode (you can do simple hex, or rather, decimal editing with it), a less cluttered menu system, and the ability to open files up to 4MB using some sort of wierd virtual memory system. I still use it quite a bit.

>>49
Does it still say version 2.0.026?

Does it still say version 2.0.026?
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/618/editex2.png

Brief research with my array of virtual machines shows that
* Edlin and GWBasic 3.22 come with MS-DOS 3.30.
* Edit 1.0 and QBasic 1.0 come with MS-DOS 5. Edit will not run without qbasic.exe present [hence same version number?]
* Edit 0.9.019 and QBasic 1.1 come with MS-DOS 6.22, seem to run independently of one another.
* Edit 2.0.026 and CScript 5.0 come with Windows 98SE/MS-DOS 7.10, run independently of one another.

MS-DOS 6.0 doesn't have a separate EDIT. It is simply a stub for QBASIC.EXE.

   File  Edit  Search  Options                                            Help
┌───────────────────────────────── Untitled ───────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                                              ↑
│
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│            ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐             ░
│            │                                                   │             ░
│            │                   MS-DOS Editor                   │             ░
│            │                    Version 1.1                    │             ░
│            │  Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1987-1992.  │             ░
│            │                                                   │             ░
│            ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤             ░
│            │                     <  OK  >                      │             ░
│            └───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘             ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ░
│                                                                              ↓
│← ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░→│
 F1=Help   Enter=Execute   Esc=Cancel   Tab=Next Field   Arrow=Next Item

(QBasic is the same, with s/MS-DOS Editor/MS-DOS QBasic/ and it has an "Immediate" pane)

Edlin
speaking of which, the freedos version of edlin (http://sourceforge.net/projects/freedos-edlin) runs just fine on *nix... but unfortunately the freedos version of edit (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/edit/) isn't as portable T_T

also, all the versions of dos/windows that have edit also have edlin, including vista.

>>55
Oh wow, even ntvdm got BlurryType now? Yuck.

>>58
ed > edlin

FreeDOS edit is a bloated piece of shit. Almost 200K, and even packed it's still 70K. MS's was a little over 64K, not packed, if I remember correctly. It's also missing binary mode, and for some reason when I tried the EXE on XP, ntvdm.exe went to 100% CPU and stayed there. MS edit doesn't do that. Back then, I guess MS did have better programmers.

>>55
Vista faaaaag.

>>59
ClearType is not the bomb, but (at least on Windows XP) you can use the old renderer and Lucida Console sized 14 and over, which will yield a nice, crisp, clear, Unicode-enabled font on the Windows console.

>>57
MS-DOS 6.0 doesn't have a separate QBASIC. It is simply a stub for EDIT.EXE.
fixed

EDIT.EXE doesn't have a separate MS-DOS 6.0. It is simply a stub for QBASIC.
fixed.

QBASIC doesn't have a separate EDIT.EXE. It's simply a stub for MS-DOS 6.0.

fixed

QBASIC doesn't have a separate QBASIC. It's simply a stub for QBASIC FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING QBASIC FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING QBASIC FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING FISTING QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC QBASIC

fixed

>>40
yes.

67 Name: .Codu 2011-03-30 3:02

http://www.xzjmqz.net/                下肢溃疡,下肢溃疡治疗,下肢溃疡病因
http://www.xzjmqz.com                下肢静脉曲张,下肢静脉曲张的治疗,下肢静脉曲张护理
http://www.tangniaobingzu88.com/    糖尿病足治疗,糖尿病足症状,糖尿病足护理
http://www.laolantuizhiliao.com/    老烂腿,老烂腿治疗,老烂腿症状