On 2012-07-13, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:> George Neuner wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:06:21 -0500, Tim Wescott >> <tim@seemywebsite.please> wrote: >> >>> After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWright, and after Borland >>> killed CodeWright I looked around for a while, then finally started using >>> Eclipse. >>> >>> You get used to it, and while it's undergone incremental changes over the >>> last decade, it hasn't undergone any huge stupid "improvements". >> >> Yeah, but unlike Brief or Codewright, Eclipse is "clunky" to use. I >> tried SlickEdit (which somebody else mentioned) but I personally found >> it to be a bit too intrusive. >> > > it's survivable. I find Eclipse clunky still. > >> I've been using UltraEdit for a while and have been reasonably happy >> with it ... it's cross platform, doesn't get in the way and in >> operation it feels (to me) very similar to the good old (5.5) >> Codewright. >> >> George >> > > > Brief is actually back. http://www.briefeditor.com/Wow, that brings back memories. I remember writing macros in Brief's internal Lisp dialect back in the mid/late 80's. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Uh-oh!! I forgot at to submit to COMPULSORY gmail.com URINALYSIS!
CodeWright Error
Started by ●July 12, 2012
Reply by ●July 13, 20122012-07-13
Reply by ●July 18, 20122012-07-18
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine >only to find codewright won't run anymore. It gives the error, >"Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3. The >memory could not be read." Any idea what could be wrong? I don't see >where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't >even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page, >not in the products page. This is ver 7.5I know that we all tend to stick with what works. But there comes a time when your editor spends more time in the garage sleeping, has difficulty leaping up onto pieces of furniture that they had no problems with in years gone by, has lost weight, has appetite issues, and doesn't seem to have a lot of energy. You can predict that the end is near. You might consider SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com).
Reply by ●July 19, 20122012-07-19
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:32:45 -0400, David T. Ashley <dashley@gmail.com> wrote:>But there comes a time when your editor spends more time in the garage >sleeping, has difficulty leaping up onto pieces of furniture that they >had no problems with in years gone by, has lost weight, has appetite >issues, and doesn't seem to have a lot of energy. You can predict >that the end is near. > >You might consider SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com).Yeah, that happened to me. Over the last 30 years I have gone the Brief (Underware) -> Brief (Borland) -> CodeWright -> SlickEdit route. I have to say, CodeWright (CW) has been the best editor I have ever used and beat all the others (including SlickEdit) by a mile. It never spent any time idle, but started to have platform issues as the Windows empire continued to evolve. I knew it was finally time to start thinking about a new editor when I ported CW to Win 7. When that happened, my CW help system would no longer work. And that is a unfortunate since CW had THE best help system of all of them. SlickEdit runs a close second place, but not quit as nice as CW was. And if you were fortunate to have CW support like I was ($99 per year, I think), it was unmatched. Toll-free calls for support, which only occurred rarely, and the person answering the call either wrote CW, or knew who did and got answers. It was phenominal. Compare that to SlickEdit where support only gives you access to upgrades and all other inquiries are "handled" by using their forum. The forum is actually pretty good, but you may or may not get an answer to your question, and it may or may not come from SlickEdit themselves. In my opinion SlickEdit just tries to do too much. It did not take me long to get used to it, and I seem to be managing fine with it, but some simple things are performed inconsistently. I would classify it as a very nice editor, but not the best I have used. Lou
Reply by ●July 19, 20122012-07-19
I've been using the same CW editor since 1996 (CW 4.0e, first installed in Win95). IMO, Premia started to take backwards steps with all releases after rel 4. It will be hard to change editors when it will no longer work. It's served me well on all platforms (Win95, WinXP, and now Win7). The strange thing about Win7 is that the CW keyboard auto-repeat would act flakey but it mysteriously and progressively corrected itself over a year of use. It works as well as it ever did now. It's weird that is was a gradual improvement. Just goes to show you modern software is so complicated it borders on organic. JJS "Mr. C" wrote in message news:ku0g0817ruhp8uiikj1tb1h05agj60bgg8@4ax.com... On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:32:45 -0400, David T. Ashley <dashley@gmail.com> wrote:>But there comes a time when your editor spends more time in the garage >sleeping, has difficulty leaping up onto pieces of furniture that they >had no problems with in years gone by, has lost weight, has appetite >issues, and doesn't seem to have a lot of energy. You can predict >that the end is near. > >You might consider SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com).Yeah, that happened to me. Over the last 30 years I have gone the Brief (Underware) -> Brief (Borland) -> CodeWright -> SlickEdit route. I have to say, CodeWright (CW) has been the best editor I have ever used and beat all the others (including SlickEdit) by a mile. It never spent any time idle, but started to have platform issues as the Windows empire continued to evolve. I knew it was finally time to start thinking about a new editor when I ported CW to Win 7. When that happened, my CW help system would no longer work. And that is a unfortunate since CW had THE best help system of all of them. SlickEdit runs a close second place, but not quit as nice as CW was. And if you were fortunate to have CW support like I was ($99 per year, I think), it was unmatched. Toll-free calls for support, which only occurred rarely, and the person answering the call either wrote CW, or knew who did and got answers. It was phenominal. Compare that to SlickEdit where support only gives you access to upgrades and all other inquiries are "handled" by using their forum. The forum is actually pretty good, but you may or may not get an answer to your question, and it may or may not come from SlickEdit themselves. In my opinion SlickEdit just tries to do too much. It did not take me long to get used to it, and I seem to be managing fine with it, but some simple things are performed inconsistently. I would classify it as a very nice editor, but not the best I have used. Lou
Reply by ●July 20, 20122012-07-20
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:24:45 PM UTC+3, rickman wrote:> I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine > only to find codewright won't run anymore. It gives the error, > "Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3. The > memory could not be read." Any idea what could be wrong? I don'=;t see> where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't > even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page, > not in the products page. This is ver 7.5 >=20 > RickTry to reinstall CodeWright, it should help. I am using all the time in=20 everyday work CW 7.5 with Win XP SP3 with no problems. Sometimes CW stucks,= probably when turning the mouse wheel quickly - probably CW is not 100 % c= ompatible with Win XP.=20 It's a pity that CW is stopped being supported. I will pass to Win 7 soon a= nd I=20 hope CW will continue to exist. CW is probably one of the best editors ever= came. Rest to remind some of its features like: Synchronisation with Visua= l SourceSafe, F5 - possibility to split the same file into two windows, whi= ch enables editing the same file in two different locations. F7 - F8 Macro = editing and many other features.
Reply by ●October 2, 20152015-10-02
On 29/09/15 10:32, Clifford Heath wrote:> On 21/07/12 06:17, Yossi wrote: >> Rest to remind some of its features like: >> Synchronisation with Visual SourceSafe, > > Source Safe is so old and crappy that even Microsoft hasn't used it for > ten years. They've mostly even moved on again from TFS to Git now. >Microsoft /never/ used Source Safe internally. They made it, and sold it to other developers - but knew it was too buggy to use themselves. They used a big commercial VCS system at that time (Perforce, I think). TFS is, as far as I have heard, not so bad - at least when you check in some code you can later check it out unharmed. It would be wonderfully ironic if MS had moved to git internally, but I believe they use TFS mostly (and probably some Perforce, and no doubt a bit of git - certainly they use git for some of their open source code). But I gather that the rumour that MS is moving wholesale from TFS to git is no more than a rumour, based on the improved support for git in MSVS.>> F5 - possibility to split the same file into two windows, which >> enables editing the same file in two different locations. >> F7 - F8 Macro editing and many other features. > > All features that are available in any modern editor, and have been > retrofitted to most old ones too (vim, emacs, etc). > > You need to make an effort to join the 21st century. > Try Sublime, that seems to be the editor-du-jour. > > Clifford Heath.
Reply by ●October 4, 20152015-10-04
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:> Microsoft /never/ used Source Safe internally. They made it, and sold > it to other developers - but knew it was too buggy to use themselves. > They used a big commercial VCS system at that time (Perforce, I think).Starting from 1999 at least the OS group used a system called Source Depot, which I understand is a customized version of Perforce. According to Wikipedia they used a custom version of RCS before that. http://web.itu.edu.tr/~dalyanda/mssecrets/other/Startup.htm http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=16204 Nowadays there's many more suitable alternatives, so I would imagine each team can pick according to their preferences. -a
