Recommendation for Code/Text Editor?

Realer programmers use "cat > file"

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> Real Programmers (TM) use TECO.
> 
> 

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:53:34 -0700, Kevin D. Quitt <KQuitt@IEEInc.com>
wrote:

>Real Programmers (TM) use TECO.

Escape Meta Alt Control Shift (EMACS) was originally implemented as a
set of macros over TECO. 

Vi is a piece of wombat do.

I use CodeWright because it was the standard at a PPOE.  Previously, I
used BRIEF because it was a standard at another employer.  Seeing that
Borland has purchased both of these, then killed them through neglect,
you might want to avoid my next choice (whatever it is).

Before that was Unipress EMACS under VAX/VMS, CREDIT under ISIS, EDLIN
under PC-DOS (NOT MS-DOS), and @ED under EXEC-8.

In the future, I might look at EMACS (let's see Borland buy that!) or
JED (www.jedsoft.org).  If I was in the mood to buy something, I'd
look at SlickEdit and MultiEdit, and maybe DAC or Understand.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:18:08 GMT, iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote:
>In the future, I might look at EMACS

Check out Epsilon, then.  http://www.lugaru.com/cgi-bin/send12/eval/m


--
 _
Kevin D. Quitt					  Kevin@Quitt.net
	      96.37% of all statistics are made up

Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Vi is a piece of wombat do.
> 
GVim is not that bad. Sure its not perfect, but I use it most often. Its 
small and its fast.

-- 

Wing Wong.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:59:25 +0000 (UTC), Wing Fong Wong
<wing@stude.edu.au> wrote:

>Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Vi is a piece of wombat do.
>> 
>GVim is not that bad. Sure its not perfect, but I use it most often. Its 
>small and its fast.

On the other hand, maybe being a "piece of wombat do" is a *good* thing.
Something similar certainly seems to work for coffee beans ...

http://coffeetea.about.com/cs/kindsofcoffee/a/aakopiluwak.htm

-- 
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:59:25 +0000 (UTC), Wing Fong Wong
<wing@stude.edu.au> wrote:

>Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Vi is a piece of wombat do.
>> 
>GVim is not that bad. Sure its not perfect, but I use it most often. Its 
>small and its fast.

It's just a piece of old humor left over from the vi vs. emacs editor
wars years back.  "Vi is a Piece of Wombat Do" was the name of a
debate session at the 1985 UNIX User Group conference.  The phrase
made me smile and stuck in my head.  If you deja-google my name and
vi, you'll see I use it at every opportunity.

I really don't know enough about vi to defend or condemn it.
Everything I know about vi I heard third-hand  (e.g., "If you type
"exit" at the command prompt, you will irrevocably destroy your entire
document").  I've never seriously tried to use it.  But I will admit
to being a huge fan of EMACS back in the mid-1980s.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> David T. Ashley <dashley@cequentgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>>Can anyone recommend a text editor they are very hapy with (and why)?
> 
> 
> Since no editor war can ever possibly be complete without it, let me
> name the be-all and end-all of editors: (X)Emacs.  Maybe the easiest
> way of describing it is this: if you want your editor to do something,
> but find that there's no Emacs support for it at all (not even a
> third-party Elisp macro), take this as a hint that you're probably
> trying to do the wrong thing.
> 

I had this conversation just last night. I had about 50 false starts with
Emacs. I could get through the tutorial, but it still made no sense. Then
I asked a guru to give me about an hour's overview, and that did it. That
was 6 or 7 years ago.

I knew Emacs was the way to go since about 1989, because all the real
Unix programmers used it. But I can't tell you how to get started if you
don't have access to a guru.

The Cygwin version of XEmacs is just fine.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:56:21 GMT, Bryan Hackney <no@body.home> wrote:
>I knew Emacs was the way to go since about 1989, because all the real
>Unix programmers used it. But I can't tell you how to get started if you
>don't have access to a guru.

Since I'm banging my drum: 

epsilon -t

(teach mode)

-- 
#include <standard.disclaimer>
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91387-4454         96.37% of all statistics are made up

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:36:16 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:

>
>
>
>David T. Ashley wrote:
>
>>Can anyone recommend a text editor they are very happy with (and why)?
>
>I really like UltraEdit, especially the ease of dong a search and 
>replace in multiple files, including a CR/LF in a search and 
>replace term, and - most important of all - a really good column
>mode.  Any editor that doesn't have a good column mode isn't really
>suitable for coding.  Other nice features are the insert row of
>incrementing/decrementing numbers (with/without leading zeros),
>Sum collumn, and easy conersion between DOS/Mac/Unix formats.
>
>I have been doing more and more Linux programming lately; does anyone
>know of a good text editor for linux that does collumns well?
>

"The Hessling Editor", an implimentation of the IBM XEDIT editor with
enhancements. Full open source, so available for most OSes one might
use to develop on. Uses REXX as it's script language.

Anton Erasmus

Dave Hansen wrote:

> I use CodeWright because it was the standard at a PPOE.  Previously, I
> used BRIEF because it was a standard at another employer.  Seeing that
> Borland has purchased both of these, then killed them through neglect,
> you might want to avoid my next choice (whatever it is).

Codewright still exists under borland, its not bad, better than the
original. Has new age things like being able to right click an identifier
in the source and get all cross references, etc.

I use old coderight, I didn't upgrade to Borlands because they broke the
Brief emulation in several places.