Text editor

I'm getting tired of Notepad++ and its annoying and cumbersome interface. I'm looking for an editor with:
1.Syntax highlighting/+User-friendly way to edit highlights bonus
2.zero cost/+Open source  bonus
3.search and replace:in selection/+regex bonus
4.Multiple document interface/+tree view bonus
5.Code folding or equivalent./+Auto-completion of keywords/brackets/functions bonus
6.Ability for changing font/colors/appearance freely .
7.Ability to handle unicode and large >64kb files.
8.Extensive undo/redo /+bonus for keeping it after saving.
9.Macros or scriptable commands.

Anyway Scite sucks.
Its require building configuration files by hand.
There none by default. And editing text files to configure programs is left in 90's.
Programs must have a configurable interface.

>>40
For a slightly better packer/protector/DRM scanner, check PEiD, but it doesn't really beat you opening the file in a hex editor/disassembler/debugger and actually finding out exactly what it is.

>>42
My Antivirus is Common Sense 2009 and virustotal.com.
I usually consider every file to be trojan/virus or malware until proven otherwise. I'm running windowsXP and can't take any risks.

>>43
I don't see how actually poking at the executable insides to find out what it REALLY is, shouldn't be part of a coder's common sense, yes it does require you to understand the PE file format, and x86 assembly, and ability to read MSDN or something for win32 api reference, but it's nothing really hard, however for debugging you may want to run the executables in a VM.

>>44
I don't find working with dis-assemblers productive.
Modern programs are megabytes of instructions.
Debugging something long is generally very time-consuming and requiring to memorize alot of code which is used in a single EXE.
Debugging programs through single-step would takes years.

>>45
clearly has no idea how reverse engineers work nowadays.

>Modern programs are megabytes of instructions.
Yes, some can be quite bloated, but do you expect most of the code to be relevant to your interest? Why would you reverse the same libc/crt/etc library, that's what library identification plugins are for. A modern reverser can understand the gist of what's going on from a quick look, you don't need to understand every instruction in your application to find out how it works, if you need specific details of a function you don't understand you analyze it.
>Debugging something long is generally very time-consuming and requiring to memorize alot of code which is used in a single EXE.
Use an interactive disassembler, why would you memorize everything when you can have the dissasembler do that for you.
There are also helper decompilers for lazy asses which can't read asm fluenty.
>Debugging programs through single-step would takes years.
Untrue, it's possible to simulate the execution of an application through singlestep in a rather fast timeframe, but there is rarely the need to do that, why would you execute the same code all over again, you just need to document the parts which you understand, give meaningful names to functions, understand the structures involved and meaning of local and global variables, there are many automated and user-aided tools which accomplish this.
Reversing both large and small applications can be done fairly quickly depending on your experience and understanding of the target archicture, languages used, standard libraries and other helper libs, native/system APIs.
Also, when it comes to malware, which is what your reversing goal would be in this case, most are fairly small/easy to understand, some may be protected using bloated protections, but you can just remove those in your VM, and recover the actual app's code, which can them be easily analyzed.

tl;dl: Learn more about reversing before assuming it impossible, plenty of people can do it without much trouble if they have the required knowledge, and it doesn't take much time. It would take a few months of work to fully decompile an medium-sized application whose source you want to recover, but it would be easier to just rewrite it while only reversing the parts you don't understand,

>>46
to continue from that line of thought,
let's take a simple example:

the linux kernel is a large piece of code(or take any large application to which you have the source) which spans many megabytes of source code, and you need to locate a bug in it, do you expect to read the whole source to find it? no, you only locate and find the relevant parts given your knowledge of the bug, then you fix it once you understand it.

It would take a few months of work to fully decompile an medium-sized application whose source you want to recover, but it would be easier to just rewrite it while only reversing the parts you don't understand.

I'm afraid thats the point. Recovering (for example Starcraft) sources is far out of my league.

>>48
Nobody said you need to recover the whole applications source code. Of course it's possible to do it if you have the time, but, your goal was to just understand if something is a malware or virus, in which case, the task is much simpler than fully recovering the source code of a large application.

>>49
In that >>43 case i use virustotal.com

>>50
using virustotal is fine, but, false positives do exist. There are certain cases where it's very hard to make a reliable detector for some malware, in which case they blacklist the packer/protector used, also I've seen plenty of malware which are completly undetected on virustotal which were protected using a complex system, but once you reverse it yourself, you can see clearly that it's a malware and what it does, so nothing will ever beat having you look at it yourself, AVs are only trustable for known malware which is not heavily poly/metamorphic, but won't work in some cleverly targeted attacks or certain rare malware which is well protected. There is still a long way to go for AVs to be able to detect certain kinds of viruses.

>>51
I assume >>43 them to be trojan/virus/malware until proven otherwise. Especially closed source/unpopular apps.
The latter i prefer to not download at all.

>>52
There's also the option of installing that software in a virtual machine.

>>53
My Athlon doesn't have AMD-V according to AMD tool and cannot run Virtual Box.
I checked this last week when i wanted to install Gentoo in VM.

>>54
Even without virtualization CPU extensions, you can run VM software, albeit slower, since it needs to emulate ring 0 code instead of running it natively. Not sure if VirtualBox will work in that case, but vmWare should. I have an old box which runs vbox just fine, even though it doesn't have the extensions, the version was before Sun bought out vbox, however it did have some bugs, like hardware breakpoints weren't working in the debugger.

I'll try QEMU

     
ALPHA-QUALITY
"QEMU is an emulator for various CPUs. It works on Linux, Windows, FreeBSD and Mac OS X. Windows version is in an alpha stage. I hope I can provide useful information on development and usage of the software."

"on certain hardware, as of Xen version 3.0, unmodified versions of Microsoft Windows and other proprietary operating systems can also be used as guests if the CPU supports x86 virtualization (e.g., Intel VT or AMD-V).[2]"

You could always just try vmWare.

>>59
Only player is freeware. It plays precomposed virtual machines.(its for OS emulation)

>>16
Visual Studio is bloatware.
I don't need a huge IDE i want to edit code fast.
I managed just fine with metapad for years.

>>22
"Built on Mozilla codebase.."
The download is 31mb.Thats like its using an entire browser.
If you convince me its not bloatware i'll try it.
The feature list seems compelling.

System Requirements</div>
Windows</h4>
Windows XP, 2000 or Vista</li>
233 MHz+ CPU (500 MHz+ PIII recommended)</li>
128 MB RAM (256 MB+ recommended)</li>
Up to 230 MB hard disk space during installation</li>

all this to replace Notepad...

Some perspective:
EDIT.COM is 69,886 bytes
Notepad is 69,120 bytes
metapad is 95,744bytes
Notepad++ is 1,138,688 bytes
Comodo install 31MB

Textmate

>>65
Mac-Only software. Also:
TextMate does have a few limitations:

    * There is no support for variable-width or wide fonts, meaning that languages such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and others are not really supported, as their characters are wider than Latin characters.
    * There is no right-to-left support for languages such as Arabic and Hebrew.
    * Large (many megabyte) files or long lines (many KB) can slow TextMate considerably. Other editors have better support for large files.
    * TextMate has no built-in support for (S)FTP. There are some workarounds mentioned at the TextMate Wiki. [15]
    * Because TextMate is not tightly coupled to a scripting language, as Emacs is to elisp, it is impossible for users to have complete control over the behavior of some built-in commands such as those which indent sections of text or those which move columns around; however, almost every useful action can be accomplished with TextMate’s macros and commands. Allan Odgaard explained his thoughts on the subject in an email to the TextMate mailing list.[16]
    * No built-in HTML validator — because TextMate uses the W3C validator for HTML validation, users must be online to validate HTML.
    * No support for split views

Use a magnetized needle on your hardrive and GTFO.

GHC is 350MBytes

Seriously, we're living in the times of 1TB hard drives, what's your problem guys?

>>68
350 MB are you serious? I've seen capable Linux distros half this size.

>>69
I have seen a total of 2TB capacity on my drives. It's not a problem to me. I don't see your point.

>>69
Name           : ghc
Version        : 6.10.1-1
URL            : http://www.haskell.org/ghc/
Installed Size : 574348.00 K
Description    : A state-of-the-art, open source, compiler and interactive
                 environment for Haskell.

>>70 Horrific code bloat?
Its like having a text format which is 100 times the size.

>>72
Except there is no good alternative to GHC (we're not talking about HUGS, it's a matter of preferences).

>>71
 Haskell Clean(i don't use it just installed out of curiosity) without example programs is 32mb installed.(Clean is also much faster)

I don't know it it supports everything GHC does but it should be OK.

>>74
But does it scale?

One word, -fglasgow-exts, thread over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_(programming_language)#How_Clean_works

in during OMG POTIZMIED

>>79
Every <fucked-up academic language> translates to assembly if either you like it or not.
If its not efficient it doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
Excuses like Enchanched functionality,Rich user expierience are just like "ENTERPRISE QUALITY".