|
Do you know when Vi was created? A man named Bill Joy created it in 1976 when he merged two programs called ed and ex, which were the original Unix programs for editing files. Many of the commands haven't changed much from way back in 1976. The theory behind it's command structure is it enabled the user to keep his hands on the keyboard, and even further then that, only have to use keys easily reachable from the standard home row typing position for the most often used tasks. There was no gui interface and certainly no mouse commands to slow down productivity. Since then, thousands of unix admins, programmers, and other unix people (and later people using BSD, linux, ect ect ect) have learned to be quite productive with it. Would it have been reasonable to change the commands just because somebody came along and built there own arbitrary convention for keystrokes almost 15 years after Vi's original creation when it already had a huge user base that liked it the way it was? I don't think so.
|
I've been semi-supportive of your complaints, oopicmaster but 'proprietary keystrokes'? *g* That doesn't make any sense. And pico is pretty easy. And that's sort of the thing: vi can do stuff most other editors can't. Which means it's gonna have keybindings most others don't. And if it's going to be different in the superset, it makes little sense to be consistent with other editors' subsets when it can be consistent with itself (not that it entirely is, I guess).
If you are serious about your quest, I just found out that setedit's cousin rhide can be run under Linux. I haven't tested it, personally, but... http://www.rhide.com/ And mfeat, I don't know a Microsoft shill that would be demanding a console programmer's text editor - he'd be in here claiming AbiWord and OpenOffice sucked compared to MSOffice. Though oopicmaster isn't entirely clear on telling us what he wants, I'll grant. Wordpad doesn't have much to do with c.p.t.e., either. Maybe I'm just weird and being a pushover. There are a lot of DOS apps that could be ported. Just like with Windows, the system sucks and the apps were limited by the system but the apps were sometimes excellent, all things considered. But, then again, DOS apps don't always share a whole lot of keybindings, either. ;) There's just so damn much to learn with Linux that I can see picking your battles. It can take a lifetime to master vim and maybe time spent figuring out an editor is time you could spend coding on a more familiar editor. I don't buy that, as the text editor is your second most important tool after your shell and the idea of porting command.com so you don't have to learn bash makes me nauseous. But I can at least comprehend the argument of a familiar editor. |
i just emerged rhide (Gentoo). It's decent, fairly easy to use. Probably still need to read the manual for some things but i manage to write a "Hello, Robert" program in C, compile it and run it without having to read any instructions. It seemed to automatically find gcc (im guessing maybe it used the path variable maybe but it worked without me telling it anything). im using it with mouse support but im noticing most of the menu options have shortcut keys that are fairly simple but you'd still have to learn em (like to compile i think is ATL+F9).
i still havent figured out if i can get Java apps to compile but if i figure it out i'll post back. |
Quote:
For example... in MANY windows apps... what does ALT-F do? Bring up a file menu... In Kate on linux what does ALT-F do? Bring up a file menu... If vi is so great, why didnt the vi style of text editor catch on? Where are all of the vi clones? Same with emacs. |
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/app...vi/!INDEX.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/app...cs/!INDEX.html And that's extremely incomplete. Of course, that argument doesn't necessarily hold one way or the other - you could say 'editor X rules because it's been imitated a thousand times' but you could just as easily say 'editor X sucks because it's taken a thousand attempts to make it usable'. And Alt-F isn't imitated because notepad is a great editor. ;) It's just how MS set up all the standard apps - or maybe Mac - or the Xerox thing. Or whatever. Point is, it's not an editor thing. How often do you use Alt-F, anyway? Ctrl-S or Ctrl-Q or whatever. So <esc>:q or <esc>:wq. It's the <esc> that's the kicker. Modal. And with emacs you get hyper-chordal. |
well, for all of those who have the text based editor fetish i just say this: you are now on the 21st century! text based were used in the past, you cant possibly be as much productive in text based as in X. you gotta move on. thisgs like code completation, intellisense, etc make you more productive, not more lamer. using a text based editor doesnt make you some kind of a leet, it just slows your work down.
thats why visual studio rocks above all of those "leet" ide's. i dont have anything against those type of editors, but using the mouse is nice :P anjuta is really great btw, also mingw dev studio is really great. it looks just like vc++ 6. try it: http://www.parinya.ca/ :D |
by a2ps
well, for all of those who have the text based editor fetish i just say this: you are now on the 21st century! text based were used in the past both vim, emacs and possibly a few other console editors have gui versions so they run in X you cant possibly be as much productive in text based as in X. you gotta move on. the system you are most productive in is normally the one you are most comfortable with whether it be gui or not thisgs like code completation, intellisense, etc make you more productive, not more lamer. i quite agree and i regularly use some of the advanced features of vim to aid editing, it completes brackets for me, creates function/class bodies for me(C/C++), sets up includes(C/C++), automatically \begin{}\end{} (LaTeX), etc i have found VC++6 and clones to be too restrictive in what they allow me to do. using a text based editor doesnt make you some kind of a leet, it just slows your work down. i dont think it slows my work down, but as i say people work best with what their used to. |
Quote:
If you must use a mouse, there's always gpm, I suppose. |
i rarely use the mouse when coding, even with those modern editors. they also have key shortcuts. plus, better tools to help you out while working.
Ive used text based editors a few years ago, but i just cant understand why are still there people using them. |
I write a lot of code for embedded PPC's running linux myself. I don't bother with IDE's because I can't run the code on my development machine (binary incompatable so native debugger is rather useful) and I only use the standard glib C stuff. As a result I use the tool that helps me right code as fast as possible, and since I know the vi commands like the back of my hand that is what I use.
As for the comment about there being no vi clones..... there are dozens. The reason there are no Vi clones or products on the shelf of the software store is it doesn't make much sense to sell what people can download for free. Fact remains that it is about the only editor except for ed that you can pretty much guarentee will be on any and all UNIX or *NIX systems you sit down at. |
Quote:
|
oopicmaster... you seem to forget that Windows '95 was NOT the first ever OS. The things you call 'industry standard' are hardly that... ALT-F on a VAX?? Don't think they even have an ALT key. Menus and popups on a basic VT52 terminal?? I don't think so...
The things that you criticise about emacs are exactly what makes it so powerful. Simple screen displays mean that it will work on the greatest number of possible screens. Fully configurable key-bindings mean that if you don't like the defaults, you can set up your own. You also complain about the integration with compilers and other development tools. Which tools are you talking about? gcc? g77? java? Just about any tool that will accept input on STDIN and give output on STDOUT and STDERR will work or can be configured to work with emacs. The whole idea of emacs is that it makes as few assumptions as possible about how you work... and you call this a bad thing??? The fact that you don't like it is fine... that's your prerogative, but the reasons you give are frankly nonsensical. |
Quote:
emacs clones - XEmacs, freemacs, jove, zile, MicroEmacs, NotGNU Emacs off the top of my head :D |
Just playing devil's advocate some more...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well most of the time I often use text editor to edit configuration files so I usally use pico which always does the job (although I have used vi before but that was because I forgot to install pico!). However, a few days ago I found a text editor on my Slackware 9.1 laptop called jed and it is very good. It is a menu driven editor for console and it is suitable for both editing programs written in C to editing ones lilo.conf file! It also colour codes different words (ie. commented or # lines appear as light blue etc...) which makes it far easier to read. I personally believe that people should use what is best for them since the point of having such a variety of choice in text editors is not there for people to compete or act like 6 year old saying "Ohhh Vi is better than Emacs because it quicker to type in the command line" and other rediculas arguements, it is there for people to have a choice and use whatever ones they feel comfortable working with.
|
How somebody with `18 years' programming experience has never used, and I would assume effectively, editors that do not support these pre-requisite features I cannot comprehend. Also, how somebody with the obvious ability of someone in the field for so long and having covered so many languages, environments and platforms not being able to completely grasp simple concepts from manual pages does not make sense either. I suppose the programmer's world will head more in this direction the further into the Microsoft era we go. I have not programmed for over 18 years, I am only just aged over 18 years - but, I have not experienced anywhere near the difficulty in finding a functional environment.
The other thing is, most of these projects will share two characteristics. The first is they are not trying to sell you anything, the second they will happily give you their source code. So, stop complaining. If you do not like what is out there it fairly easy to add an alternative. Who knows, more people might want what you want and you can benefit the community as whole. Almost all programs start as a developers itch getting scratched - something they want that is not satisfied elsewhere. Only afterwards do they realise how many people wanted the same thing, but had not yet done anything about it. This is the community that Linux is a part of - or at least was, though some newer users no longer seem to see it this way. I use VIm and Emacs, why? They are productive for me, I find the ``annoying features'' intuitive. This is the difference between people and choice so many people have referred to. The people that release VIm have agreed they want the editor to write C in a certain way, it is their project they can do this. The people that write Emacs have decided they want to pervert C's formatting to an illegible accident, it is their project they can do this. They are then giving you all of their work for free. If I use Emacs, then I change the setting - usually to BSD from GNU. If I use VIm, I change some of the tab settings. It is not complex or prohibitive in anyway. What is more, it is all well-documented. Sorry for the rant, but some of the arguments I have seen against the projects in this thread are petty and pointless. |
Quote:
until you find something you like, you have 4 choices. a : don't use any of it b : modify the source of an existing editor to suit your needs c : write your own from scratch or d : deal with it <in this sense, most are pretty configurable so i hardly see a problem> --jeremy |
damn ..there is actually 5, which means i forgot ...
e : keep b1tching about it |
Most are pretty comfortable? You mean to tell me that the thousands of people that have been using these editors for the last 12 years aren't all either very stupid or very unhappy?
Hell, why don't we just make everything in the linux world copy what everything in the Windows world does. Lets make sure to build an e-mail client that can cause the spread of mass virus' as quickly as possibly. Lets build a kernel with more buffer overflows then we even have buffers to overflow. Lets just get ride of the whole command line interface and force a bulky gui interface regardless of whether or not people need it. Screw ssh, we don't need it anymore, telnet will do. While were at it, I think we shoud stop giving away source code too, cause everyone should be happy with it the way it is and thus shouldn't have any means of changing it or fixing any possibly problems. For somebody with "18 years" experience you should be able to write your own damn text editor by now. |
you know what they should do, they should make Crimson Editor for Linux. That's what I used on 98 and it never failed me. As a text editor, it rocked. It did have some IDE capabilites, but that was limited to syntax-highlighting, macro recording, and spell-check. Plus, it has tabs, so you can work on many documents at the same time. There are no compilers/interpretors and it supports about 100 different languages including C/C++, Java, HTML, XML, Ruby, Python, PERL, CSS, SQL, LaTeX, etc... Like I said, I wish they (or somebody) would make it for Linux...
|
There's only one way to find out which is a better editor... show some videos of a code wizard getting the job done faster.
If it took a code wizard 400 years to learn emacs, and he beat the guy using editplus in windows say.... then he has the disadvantage of taking the time to learn it; 400 years .. But if he is going to live to 100 more years, and he has several projects to do, this will make life much more fun, and much more satisfying. If it took a codewizard 5 days to learn almost every function in editplus, and the code wizard got his job done slightly slower than in emacs... then it would be better to use editplus, since humans don't live 400 years. However, if it took only 10 days to learn emacs, and the wizard got the job done faster, then fine.. those 5 days extra were worth it. Of course, it would depend on what your deadlines are too... if you had 7 days, the emacs would have to be learned another time, because you only have 7 days, not 10. Sometimes, different tools can be used for different jobs. Maybe small jobs can be done in notepad, but i rarely use notepad.. I always only use notepad if I don't want to clog up my CPU power, and i just want to read a 5 line file or a 5 line readme file.. because editplus takes about four times as much CPU power than notepad, and not just that.. memory etc. But when you load up editplus for the day, those extra CPU load and memory doesn't matter.. different tools for different jobs. So thinking with "the right tools for the right job" let's see some videos of some wizards using text editors, and let's see what magnificent things can be done with different editors, preferably emacs. I don't think just posting messages on a forum is the way to resolve whether a program is crap or not. I think we need videos or real stats. I mean if there was some movie out in the theatres about how a code wizard completed a 600 page website in 3 hours, using emacs, and some other person took 6 hours to make a similar 600 page website using VI, and then some other person took 700 hours using notepad... then we'd all see the general trend. Like using visual basic: sometimes, if you just need a really fast tool, and you want to get something done really really fast, this is more efficient than using visual C. Sometimes, people just use editors to be snobs. Many times, people will fire up a linux distrib, and really all they do is go onto IRC and talk about their elite MP3z that they own. Sometimes people will fire up linux and make it extremely useful, say an automated answering system that takes up 50 percent as much CPU load as a windows system.. there are all these "right tool for the right job" situations, and sometimes it is hard to know really if you need or need not to invest your time in a tool: but if we had some actual proof that one editor made so and so project faster than so and so project, it would help. I personally would use emacs if I saw some video of a PRACTICAL REAL WORLD EXAMPLE being done FASTER in emacs than another editor... if I had 600 pages to get organized (an FAQ for some website), you can bet that I WILL feel really satisfied, if I made that web page in half as much time, just because of my editor. ON the other hand, if it is just a farce, and in fact there's only a SMALL amount of time saved, or the ere is no time saved... well this would determine whether it is worth investing time. Real world examples are perfect. Many times I find myself in the position where i KNOW for sure that I will save TONS of time, or TONS of money, if I learn which tools fix what on a car. If you have a set of pliers and you are trying to get a nut off, SURE you can get it off, if you are just doing this task once.. but if you have 600 nuts to get off, a wrench will do the job better, and you are advised to learn how to use a wrench since it in fact will save you hours of time (in this case, learning how to use a wrench is not an issue, in fact the advantages of a wrench are twofold: less complicated than pliers, easier to use). SO in fact it could be that there is a less complicated editor and easier to use editor than emacs - and this editor gets 600 pages done faster. I don't know. But we need to prove something with REAL world examples or stats . That is why we have website stats.. they are useful sometimes, but sometimes they aren't. But they are stats, on paper, there is no guessing or "opinions" on whether you website is getting hits or not. SO there must be some contests or proof that we can perform to find real world examples on when emacs is useful and when it is not. Many times I find myself opening up editplus accidentally, when I wanted only notepad.. for small files like really short readme's.. this would be like opening up emacs just to change an etc/pswd file. But if you already have emacs loaded and open, it's ok.. just the same is if I already have editplus open... it's all about what situation you are in, and the right tools for the job, and the right time, in certain situations. Proof helps significantly. Show us some proof that Joe A got a 600 page project done X hours faster using Emacs than Joe B who got a project done Y hours slower using Vi or editplus. Then, find the exact opposite result... then study the projects and see which editor applies better for what types of projects. There are trends.. there are, you need some paper proof... I know that on paper it is faster to open up notepad for a small readme file with 5 lines in it, but I KNOW that also it is better to open up editplus in windows if I have a UNIX file that is really big and is in PHP format. On paper, it proves that different tools are more efficient for different jobs in different situations. The open dialog box in notepad is much more inefficient than a side panel file browser in editplus... but only if you are editing a large website or lots of files, and you need to search directories, etc. There are situations where programs with a LOT of features actually load FASTER than programs with SH*T features. There are programs that are easier to use that get the job done faster than programs which are harder to use, even in complex situations. Let's take total commander as an example. This program loads SUPER fast, and has about 100 different uses.. going as far as reading PDF files.. it does ALL THESE things FASTER than explorer, and it has way more features than explorer. It is easier to use, since it doesn't swizzle the hard drive every few seconds like explorer, and it has two panels. So it is easier to use, faster to load, and gets the job done faster .These programs are the DIAMONDs of programs. If editplus opened FASTER than notepad did, that would make my day. So if you had an editor that was easy to use, loaded faster, AND got the job done faster, it would be better in all areas. Most of the time this is not the case; you usually have to sacrifice something. When you have to sacrifice something, you must study WHAT job the tool is for and when to use it.. so what jobs can be done faster in emacs.. I know for sure that their text based browser is NOT efficient - if it was fast, that would be great. But in order to study whether or not Emacs is useful, or Vi is useful, i need to see some sexy movie or some MPEG showing a code wizard getting a 600 page website project done much faster than some user on windows using edit plus... if there are different situations in which editplus can get the job done faster, and emacs can get the job done faster, fine. But we need to analyze and look at which tool is better for what situation. I know for sure on paper than I can whip up total commander and get my FTP files uploaded, open a bunch of programs, open some pdf files, copy some files, etc. faster than if I open up 5 different tools to do all those jobs (acrobat, an ftp program, and explorer). Sometimes jack of all trades tools ARE masters in a significant amount of their combined tools. Emacs text based browser is slow, it is not good ... if it was, fine, then it would be a jack of all trades tool. If I was asked to prove this on paper, I could - i could prove that if I needed on some day, to ftp some files, open some pdf, and copy some files, etc. that the right tool for the job would be ttlcmder... compared to using 5 different masters. When and where can we find some real proof that there are codewizards out there getting some real interesting projects done in less time, or in a more beneficial way using editor X in comparison to editor Y? Someone has to step up to the plate and show off the advantages of the editors. I would prefer to buy a special screwdriver tool from the tool store if I saw some movie showing the benefits of it in certain situations, or i had real world experience in using the tool and i could prove that it was faster in certain situations.. i wouldn't buy it if i just heard someone talking about it in a web forum! i would just argue with them and tell them that a screwdriver is better! Maybe in certain situations.. maybe not, maybe in all situations the screwdriver was not beneficial at all. |
why won't this thread DIE..ARRGHH!!
|
are you 14 and a half years old
|
it was a joke bro..and i wish i was that young and was interested in the things i am now...but that's neither here nor there..
|
Bump.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I love editor wars. Long may they continue! Pointy. P.S. Emacs for president! |
If you want to know if an editor is good or not...
Its simple.... Look at the clones. If there are no clones... its for a reason. Where are the EMACS clones? They dont exist. End of Discussion!!!! |
jEdit - use it and love it.
http://www.jedit.org/ |
Quote:
|
However, I think "kate" is the best editor EVER!
|
vim, pwns and cures the common cold.
|
Vim is the best. Period.
|
elvis is not dead !
|
>> They don't exists because EMACS is SOOO perfect that no one needs to try to make it "better".
If only this were true... Alas... As they saying goes.... Imitation is the best form of flattery... There are few other places where this statement is as true as it is with computer software. |
Quote:
|
Yawwwnnn...again...
Quote:
|
The good news is...
Quote:
|
pssssssstt.. vim is having my lovechild
|
believe me, 80% of the people that replied in this thread have never coded on java in his life (i belong to that 80%) but what this guy wants is to try the Eclipse IDE. thats the state of the art for java coders
|
|
For the love of everything holy, will someone please take oopic back to to Windows sheep land and leave him there?
Yes, maybe some linux text editors use "generic" names for things like the ALT key. Linux is designed to run on about 100 times more architectures than your beloved Windows is and not all of them use keyboards with an ALT key. In your 18+ years of using a computer you've never used google? Try searching it for text editors and use some of the features you want as keywords in the search. Please don't come on here like some crazed juvenille whining that you can't find something you like. I got so tired of reading "Is Emacs an editor or an IDE" that I wanted to shove the numerous replies explaining what it is down your throat. And about the "try designing an editor for a client that looks like Emacs blah blah" argument. Emacs isn't designed to suit one client specifically. If it was it probably wouldn't be so functional. Emacs is designed to be likened to anyone's taste with a bit of configuration. That's obviously not what you want so just leave it alone. Move on to the next one and see how you like it. I must have 20 different editors installed and none of them are exactly the same. Find one you like and use it. If you're concerned about using the same editor at the command line as you do in X, then just find a good command line editor. You know you can use those in X?! If all else fails, find something that's close to what you want and modify it to how you want. With 18+ years of coding experience you better damn well know how to change "buffer" into "file". Recompile, you're done! And please, read a majority of the other threads in this forum and follow their politeness. With your attitude I have a hard time believing you're even 18 years old let alone having 18+ years of programming experience. And if you really have, then try to answer some of the true programming questions in this forum. |
Well said itsme86 though here's a guy just probably setting up a debate and not necessarily wanting to go back to windoze.
You can see whose views are prevailing when the thread starts with "Geez, are there ANY decent text editors in Linux? and shifts the goal posts to discuss the merits and demerits of IDE and compile and debug environments. This seems a little unfair to vi and emacs. They were designed before windows (or any other GUI) came into the picture. So how to you get blocking and "cut and paste" in vi? Heres what I did. Windoze client (W98), telnet to the linux server in a command window with the screen tab set to "window" and not "full screen". Now you can block and paste. Use notepad in one window, block and paste, open vi in another, go to [b]--Insert--[/] mode and <ctrl+v>. But see what all you can do with emacs and vi that you can't do with any IDE or the commercial bloats. (Used both TC and VC++ in my time). (1) With Unix based character editors, you can edit any language. Not restricted to c and other language specific editors. (Did TC IDE put or have have an option for a soft CR?). (2) No colour highlighting of key words (I simply don't like the editor telling me how to debug my code). By the way, at the root of all Unix project builds (and Linux is one of them) is `make`- a very standardised way of compiling with it's so standardised "dependencies". Only Unix has a near stabnard way of handling commands. <command> [- flags] [[-] filename(s)] So I think that theres nore choice in Linux and also more standardisation and effectiveness. Only not THE standard. As itsme86 says, in Linux, you can build the editore of you choice.! End |
well, in part i simphatize with this opinion, since i've been looking last three years for a linux IDE/editor that provides the very useful intellisense feature for C++. The one closer to bring something barely working is last versions of Kdevelop. But still isnt working well for big projects (which is where the benefit of the intellisense pays off)
i mean, you can google for linux ide c++ and see so many projects trying to call people attentions , and its depressing to see that this feature that its been present of MSVC during more than 7 years, it still miss a decent inmplementation on the linux side and its depressing for a concrete reason: the tools and the expertise to do it seem to be there, but its in a "decoherent" state. For example there is the g++ C++ parser, which from the very beginning it could been designed as a modular separate project, allowing other projects to use it too, which would have made the complex c++ parsing technology available to IDE projects that could have benefited the whole community with c++ analysis tools (as the intellisense feature). Instead of that g++ developers decided to do the highest interwined parser code they could possibly do with the rest of the compiler code. So yes, its easy to dismiss when one criticizes superavailability of substandard quality projects in linux (well its free after all, so we shouldnt be critizing anything, .. right?) but its important to see that this also happens because of the lack of vision on some, let say, key projects on the so called open source community cheers |
vim for president!!!!!
|
Wow
Quote:
I have flirted with cobol, MS VB and java but i still remain a simple c/c++ guy (as opposed to quoted author), and while i got spoiled by ide-s that generate the shell of my apps i can still live with ANY text editor. My least waste of time goes into manipulating text/files. I guess if it is all the tools you are blamming, maybe you should evaluate skills of the user. And last but not least : Human species IS the most adaptible specie in the world, that is why we can progress as a society. |
introducing vim's running mate, and future vice president, vi!!!
*applause and cheers* chanting.. * vim and vi! vim and vi! vim and vi! vim and vi! * |
|
Hi, I haven't posted here in a couple months.
Why is anyone taking this troll seriously? Look at his posting history; complete arsefez. Cheers. p.s. Jove is a "clone" of emacs. Besides that, and likely many others, for all I know (I just happened to remember seeing mention of "Jove" during the Slackware install process), consider how many programs (shells, cli browsers, anything requiring regular keyboardage) support emacs-style shortcuts. Not to mention vi[m], which is of course better. I'm joking; I just happened to start w/vi[m] and have grown far too attached to it. Again: arsefez! |
Well this is dead now, but nano is great! http://www.nano-editor.org/
|
Re: Geez, are there ANY decent text editors in Linux?
Quote:
I almost thought he was trolling for a flameware, but then he types... Quote:
I know others have already mentioned JOE, but there's also Pico, Nano (I think), kate, and gedit. There was a poll, a while back here at LQ about favorite text editor. Bear in mind, a majority of LQers are in the camp of vi (a holdover from their old mainframe days, no doubt.) |
I think this thread is what my baby sister would call "Crazy Talk".
Kate is the best editor. (Graphical editor that is... joe is the best text editor (only because I don't know how to use any more "sophisticated" text editor. :p)) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 PM. |