Preferred Editor(s) (176)

1 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 13:03 ID:/y/PlSFi This thread was merged from the former /code/ board. You can view the archive here.

What's your favorite IDE/text editor when it comes to programming? Also, what's the setup in the banner up top? http://static.4-ch.net/images/boardtitles/programming.gif, that is.

2 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 13:12 ID:Heaven

vim or emacs.

3 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 13:45 ID:Heaven

vi

4 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 15:59 ID:Heaven

Emacs

5 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 18:43 ID:Heaven

leo

6 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 19:30 ID:6+WJxQFw

another vote for vim.

7 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 19:33 ID:sLoVY7H/

vim

8 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-05-21 19:50 ID:Heaven

Evergreen or Cream

The thing up top may be TextMate. I haven't used it.

9 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 19:57 ID:Heaven

ed

10 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 21:22 ID:QRfQY9X1

vim

11 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 21:31 ID:P9lyPrqP

VI baby. Download it for windows or unix.

12 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 22:06 ID:Heaven

vim

13 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 00:12 ID:sVGzgeH7

Visual Studio, please.

14 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 01:17 ID:iWjjXrKb

kate

15 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 01:24 ID:Hu1LGl+D

I use eclipse on windows, and vi on bsd. I find that I can get more work done in eclipse, so that's what I prefer.

16 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 01:57 ID:Heaven

nvi. vim is worse than emacs.

17 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 03:06 ID:Heaven

vim boots slower than emacs and does less. I don't see the point of it at all.

emacs for lisp, irc, and email. vi for editing text files.

18 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 06:00 ID:IntJk+Se

Scintilla / Scite. I like my lightweight editor with good syntax editing. I shouldn't have to "wait" any time for a IDE to load.

Nano if im just making a small change in the shell =)

But then again, real programmers tap out their code to their hard drive manually with a ball point pen!

19 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 11:59 ID:Heaven

Elvis!

20 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 15:21 ID:W82Ml7M/

If you break into the command line on an OLPC, there's a copy of vim inside, aliased as vi because someone thought they were being clever. I've been learning to use it and like what I see.

21 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 17:20 ID:Heaven

>>16
Why nvi and not vim? Address some major differences

22 Name: XeroCint : 2008-05-22 17:33 ID:w13fS0g4

Notepad, Dreamweaver

23 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 20:02 ID:Heaven

>>21
the difference that bothers me the most is that vim is slow enough that i actually notice it.

24 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 00:48 ID:LNU5zvHG

Banner definitely looks like Textmate, which I use and recommend.
Can't see any good reason to use clunky editors that barely changed since the 70's and are a pain to integrate with all my desktop tools.

25 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 06:02 ID:FNtBeRut

emacs for coding
ultraedit / notepad++ for quick and dirty text editing
vi on remote server (coz it's a pain to use emacs without my .emacs)

26 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 06:15 ID:SakQtXCL

emacs, vim, textmate

27 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 06:18 ID:SakQtXCL

and textpad of course

28 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 11:47 ID:Heaven

>>25

> vi on remote server (coz it's a pain to use emacs without my .emacs)

Have you tried TRAMP?

29 Post deleted.

30 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 12:27 ID:Heaven

copy con

31 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 13:02 ID:+tl5QlTQ

>>29

Idiot

32 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 16:37 ID:l9ZMlVYv

coda

33 Post deleted.

34 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-05 03:58 ID:Heaven

I seriously don't understand why people continue to say stupid shit like vi, elvis, and nvi.
vi was made in the 70's for unix. it hardly does anything. if you aren't running a propriety version of unix, or perhaps solaris now that it's free, then you're not using vi. Linux simply links the vi name to vim, and *bsd links vi to nvi. So everytime you type 'vi' you're running vim or nvi. nvi hasn't been maintained in years and i doubt freebsd even uses it, they probably just use vim now. elvis isn't maintained anymore either, and hasn't been forever. talking about those ancient editors if fucking ridiculous unless you working from some remote terminal, but is the OP really asking about that?
and idiots saying vim is slower than emacs, or noticing that it is slow at all is complete bullshit. this might be true if you're running gvim on some ancient computer, but nobodys mentioned gvim, we're talking about vim.

35 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-11 02:00 ID:LBOLdwr5

vim

36 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-11 06:16 ID:Heaven

> vi was made in the 70's for unix. it hardly does anything. if you aren't running a propriety version of unix, or perhaps solaris now that it's free, then you're not using vi.

it does a lot more than emacs.

$ emacs
emacs: Command not found.

solaris uses it's own vi:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vi&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=SunOS+5.10&format=html
HP-UX does too:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vi&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=HP-UX+11.22&format=html

OS X uses vim:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/vi.1.html
apparently they somehow managed to get OS X certified UNIX 03, despite vim not being fully POSIX compliant:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/vi.html
http://www.polarhome.com/vim/manual/v71/vi_diff.html

Vim is mostly POSIX 1003.2-1 compliant.  The only command known to be missing
is ":open". There are probably a lot of small differences (either because Vim
is missing something or because Posix is beside the mark).
> nvi hasn't been maintained in years and i doubt freebsd even uses it, they probably just use vim now.

the latest version is from less than 7 months ago:
http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/nvi/devel/

[   ] nvi-1.81.6.tar.bz2      18-Nov-2007 18:02  1.7M
[ ] nvi-1.81.6.tar.gz 18-Nov-2007 17:57 2.2M

freebsd uses nvi:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vi&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+7.0-RELEASE&format=html
netbsd uses nvi:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vi&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=NetBSD+4.0&format=html
openbsd uses nvi:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vi&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+4.3&format=html

> and idiots saying vim is slower than emacs, or noticing that it is slow at all is complete bullshit.
$ /usr/bin/time -h nvi -c :q TWL06.txt > /dev/null
0.49s real 0.40s user 0.06s sys
$ /usr/bin/time -h elvis -c :q TWL06.txt > /dev/null
Read TWL06.txt, 178690 lines, 1763166 chars
0.26s real 0.08s user 0.15s sys
$ /usr/bin/time -h vim -c :q TWL06.txt > /dev/null
Vim: Warning: Output is not to a terminal
2.33s real 0.22s user 0.04s sys

37 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-12 00:50 ID:AFMGTgKG

Well, to be different, I guess I'll be honest and say I use gEdit for typical stuff, bluefish for perl/php/xhtml, and eric3 for python. The only time I use vim is when I set up the sudoers file, and I suppose I use nano to some extent when I'm running as root from the shell and can't be bothered to start something graphical.

38 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-12 19:26 ID:Heaven

nano is dangerous because it breaks lines in an effort to be helpful. Make sure you have set nowrap in your ~/.nanorc file or use nano -w to avoid breaking important files.

This is especially important when running as root.

39 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-13 06:39 ID:Heaven

i've just discovered this: http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/
it's much more lightweight than vim, and has the one feature i really wanted that nvi doesn't have: support for utf-8.

i've been using nvi, but the lack of utf-8 support meant that i had to use some other editor (usually mined 2000) whenever i wanted to edit a utf-8 encoded file.

40 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-16 00:18 ID:a3SB+yoc

41 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-16 18:31 ID:7t0ghSF+

I've been using Eclipse on my desktop, and it works wonders for a language like Java (and is still pretty useful for Python), but it lags like hell on my low-end laptop; until now I've been using Komodo editor for my Python code because of its syntax checks and popups for functions, but it's really lacking in any ability to run and test code and previously stated features seem to only work selectively.

Is it possible to get these features into emacs or a vi derivation? From what I've used of emacs, it only really has auto-indentation (which is mostly useless in python) and coloration of code. Moreover, do any of them have useful debugger features like in Eclipse?

42 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-16 19:17 ID:Heaven

>>41
yes they do. both of them. (vim & emacs)

43 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-16 19:46 ID:rL5L4oZB

I use E Text Editor. It's supposedly modeled after Textmate which I've never used since I am on Windows, but it's pretty easy to use and I don't really need anything more or less.

44 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-16 22:51 ID:OwamOtTW

nvi

45 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-17 01:03 ID:Heaven

Sometimes I wish there were an X server+window manager that rendered into emacs frames...

46 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-19 11:32 ID:Heaven

>>45
You mean like basically all tiling WMs?

47 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-19 22:55 ID:XBcKzbRz

>>9
+1 for ed. I really hate having to move a cursor around.
Real programmers don't use arrow keys, including "hjkl".

48 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-21 01:03 ID:QalE1Eaq

ConTEXT

49 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-23 21:59 ID:Heaven

>>43
At least you won't realize how badly they butchered it. Can't stand E as a Textmate user.

50 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-26 15:37 ID:Heaven

vim

51 Name: Snorlax : 2008-06-27 03:05 ID:UmDEbZm2

vim

my .vimrc

syntax enable
set autoindent
filetype plugin indent on
set nowrap
nnoremap <silent> <F8> :tabnext<CR>
nnoremap <silent> <F7> :tabprevious<CR>

52 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-27 10:09 ID:Heaven

>>51
learn to use buffers instead of tabs you idiot.

53 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-27 12:13 ID:Heaven

>>51-52

Move out of the eighties.

54 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-29 23:40 ID:aXH1Z7CE

inType

55 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-03 05:10 ID:jq14/JzN

I use the Hessling Editor, and also sometimes XED.

56 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-03 05:46 ID:QRfQY9X1

Nib pen and paper.

57 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-03 23:28 ID:Heaven

vim

58 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-04 09:54 ID:HhFwJZUA

VIM

59 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-06 04:55 ID:wbbNLonx

colorForth

60 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-06 21:56 ID:Heaven

vigor

61 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-08 08:50 ID:Heaven

vi

62 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-14 23:04 ID:aXH1Z7CE

>>49
What about InType? It's only in early alpha stage tought...

63 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-15 12:16 ID:Heaven

So I went there, and got to:

  Intype is a powerful and intuitive code editor for Windows

and stopped treating it seriously.

64 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-18 11:53 ID:Heaven

>>63

Is this some kind of personal problem or what?

65 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-20 00:31 ID:hX1ws590

vim or vi

66 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-20 01:13 ID:CL5Ax96t

wats VIM??

67 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-23 16:39 ID:/SnwlPc9

Wow, it's nice to see all the VIM users out there.

VIM

68 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-24 18:29 ID:Til11NN3

always used VIM as long as I have been testing, using and trying out non-win systems. I have used linux and BSD for a couple of years now, and vi(m) has almost always been preinstalled or available as a package.

I also used emacs for a while, but found the vi-way to be easier to me =)

But I'm still wondering if I wouldn't be better served with a good and mature IDE for developing though =/

69 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-25 09:02 ID:jq14/JzN

I usually use THE or Xed, but I'm learning TECO.

70 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-25 20:24 ID:qnOkyq0n

I use VIM to develop my Verilog modules, then synthesize and simulate them in Xilinx ISE. My favorite feature of VIM is that it colors differently the important parts of any language you type in there, be it C or verilog or HTML or ASP or anything else I've used for it.

71 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-26 13:43 ID:2lXyQ4bb

>>64
Actually, yes, and don't mind it. He has issues.

72 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-28 05:22 ID:mEF76W7S

Of course the users here are too cool (read: unknowledgeable) to admit that Visual Studio is the best IDE.

73 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-28 11:26 ID:Heaven

>>72

I became a little envious watching a co-worker of mine show of Visual Studio's SQL tool or whatever you want to call it. Beats my Emacs sql-mode.

74 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-28 19:42 ID:mEF76W7S

>>73

All that functionality is availble as a stand-alone app whoes name I can't think of at the moment. It is better than doing SQL in emacs and it is better than MySQL's query browser, But I wouldn't say that would be a the showcase item for me. Although I do love the fact it does integrate some great features like this in to the IDE.

The whole process is incredebly refined. Triple comment code meta data is fucking fantastic. (you enter 3 comment delimiters in a row immediatly preceding a procedure signature and it automatically creates the XML to enter in detailed comment metadata.)

It always stays ahead of the curve on code completion with intellesense.

VB.Net's constant precompliation makes finding many errors in code trivial as they are displaye dbefore compile. (Strangley C# doesn't do this though).

The built in web server makes quick tests trivial as well.

Then there is all the team, testing and other shit built in.

75 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-31 14:31 ID:n7BwNfxe

The whole process is incredebly refined. Triple comment code meta data is fucking fantastic. (you enter 3 comment delimiters in a row immediatly preceding a procedure signature and it automatically creates the XML to enter in detailed comment metadata.)

It never ceases to amaze me that someone can make that kind of statement without realising how fundamentally ridiculous this kind of application of XML is.

76 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-31 22:35 ID:Heaven

>>75 yeah its almost like >>74 has never used emacs before thinking those things are new or something...

77 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-31 23:00 ID:t2prNjAH

Board title image is TextWrangler, with the "title" commend inbetween some random opensource code.

78 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-01 18:23 ID:Heaven

>>76

I'm >>73. If you know any good SQL tools for Emacs I'd greatly appreciate some links.

79 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-04 03:29 ID:NI9996Zr

CODE::BLOCKS

80 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-04 04:20 ID:9CP8PUFI

>>75

I have read some stupid shit on here but that is the absolute stupides in quite a while.

XML is perfect for creating a markeup to markup comments in every way. To think otherwise means you really don't understand anything about this topic.

81 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-04 15:07 ID:n7BwNfxe

>>80
XML is barely human readable. The only purpose this sort of thing serves is to make code even harder to maintain because now the comments are illegible too.

82 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-04 19:07 ID:bZ4TsK7s

>>80

Structured comments solve a non-problem; Extracting useful documentation directly from the source code is useless if there isn't any useful documentation directly in the source code.

There are a large number of nearly empty javadoc and doxygens published on the Internet. Worthless documentation isn't better than no-documentation. At least with the latter it's harder to delude yourself into thinking you've got something. That means autodocumentation tools are simply making things worse.

Good documentation, means prose, not property lists on program definitions. XML simply doesn't enter into it.

83 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-04 21:04 ID:9CP8PUFI

>>82

Oh wow. More stupididty.

You arguement is meaningless. XML markup of comments has nothing to do with the quality of those comments.

Bad comments are bad. Good comments are good. Good comments with meaningful markup are better.

Comments don't suddenly become bad when you add extra meaningful information to them that identifies exactly what the comment is for.

If you can't see why the ability to have a standard meaningful way to document a function paramter is a good thing, you need to stop "programming." If your comments aren't good enough to provide even basic useful documnetation, then you suck at commenting.

In summary, just because you are bad at something or don't fully understand it, does not make that thing worthless.

84 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-08-04 21:21 ID:Heaven

Hay guyz,

if you can't present an argument without juvenile ad hominem jabs (<-), please go the back to 4chan.

That is all.

85 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-05 04:54 ID:njBRasrM

>>83

Structured comments make it easier to automatically extract information from comments; it does not make it easier to add information.

Comments are so limited, you cannot put meaningful documentation inside them, and by enforcing a rigid structure you are encouraging poor documentation, and making it impossible to write good documentation.

Generally speaking, I find that if a function parameter isn't apparent from the code or its name (prototype, minidoc, etc), then the API is probably stupid and was written by an idiot. I have never seen those situations saved by documentation.

86 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-05 09:59 ID:n7BwNfxe

>>83
It's very possible to add that ``meaningful'' information without adding the clutter XML does. This isn't mainly about structured comments (though >>85 is right about those), it's specifically about using XML to do it.
As far as attempts at literate programming go, XML is a failure because it makes the source code messier and harder to read.

87 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-06 06:17 ID:9CP8PUFI

>>85

Visual Studio makes the XML trivial as it adds it for you, you only need to provide the content.

Comments are only limited by a persons ability to accurately describe the code. Its apparent that you have not used a mature API extensively. Take something like the .Net APIs. The Visual Studio object explorer displays the XML comments for the APIs (and any other well commented code you are using). This tool is invaluable as is intelligence which also gets its info from the XML comments.

Parameter names should be self evident, but they can't always be. If a function takes a path to a file name, and it has to be a fully qualified path do you name it "strPathName"? That doesn't tell you shit about it. Its obviously for a path, but is it a relative path or a fully qualified one or doesn't it matter? What if there are overloads that take other paths, do you have to get super descriptive? Do you name it "strFullyQualifiedPathNameToTheFileYouWantToWorkWith"? Or maybe I should just memorize the API's full documentation, that sure is reasonable.

Or would it work better if you name it "PathName" and a little tool-tip came up when you got to the point to enter the parameter in the IDE and it read "String: Fully qualified path to the file to work with." Think about that for a while.

>>86

/// <summary>
/// Summary of LoadXMLFromFile.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="FilePath">Description of FilePath parameter.</param>
public void LoadXMLFromFile(string FilePath)

That is a basic C# XML comment (that is autogenerated with me adding the text between the tags). If you find that hard to read or pushing the comment delimited 3 times to auto-gen the XML to hard to do, you might want to choose a different hobby.

Any good developer today should be able to view XML and understand it. But since you don't, I suppose you have a better idea for a markup language to use to give context and meaning to programming comments. You can't be a true badass programmer until you have dismissed, without a reason, the ideas that teams of computer scientists and computer engineers have put way more thought in to that you have.

88 Name: 85 : 2008-08-06 18:51 ID:bZ4TsK7s

>>87

> Visual Studio makes the XML trivial as it adds it for you, you only need to provide the content.

I didn't disagree with that. I said the hard part is adding the content- something that automatic documentation has made harder by removing incentive, not easier.

> Parameter names should be self evident, but they can't always be.

Prove it, cock for brains.

> If a function takes a path to a file name, and it has to be a fully qualified path do you name it "strPathName"?

Straw man. Don't make an API that requires a fully qualified path, duh.

I'm still waiting... Maybe you can try an argument that doesn't depend on such a weak strawman next time.

89 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-06 18:52 ID:Heaven

> Any good developer today should be able to view XML and understand it.

Why set the bar so low?

Good developers can eat XML and shit strawberries!

90 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-07 05:32 ID:9CP8PUFI

>>88

Wow, I am seriously seeing a pattern develop here. You really have a hard time understanding these simple concepts.

>something that automatic documentation has made harder by removing incentive, not easier

Yes, automating a task will remove incentive to do that task. Brilliant! And this whole time automation is used as incentive to do some task, but you have turned that whole idea on its head with your brilliance.

>Prove it, cock for brains.

Did, you didn't understand.

You claim straw man argument, but fail to even prove you used the correct word there. I chose a simple example that you see in many APIs on many platforms. So what I said was not a fallacy (hence no straw man claims to be made).

>Don't make an API that requires a fully qualified path, duh.

Depending on the scope of an API that is not always reasonable. And given that there is no standard, one can't know what they should expect by default.

How is one supposed to know if the argument is a fully qualified path, or a relative path to some other directory? If it is relative, from what directory are we starting? This is all answered in documentation, not paramnames. And if that documentation has some way of identifying that a certain piece of it refers to the pa ram in question, it can be more effectively utilized by tools (most notably IDE in this case) and be of greater use to the developer. Since creating the markup to make the documentation more useful is automated, it is no extra work for the developer to utilize.

I can't be more clear and I totally expect you to not understand that at all.

It is obvious you don't program enough of create sophisticated enough programs.

91 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-07 10:25 ID:n7BwNfxe

>>90

>>88: ``The emperor has no clothes!''
>>90: ``You're just not experienced and sophisticated enough to understand invisible fabrics!''

92 Name: 88 : 2008-08-07 12:03 ID:njBRasrM

> Yes, automating a task will remove incentive to do that task.

So you agree that autodocumentation decreases the quality of good literate documentation, you simply disagree when I say bad autodocumentation is worse than no documentation?

> Depending on the scope of an API that is not always reasonable.

Wrong. Making a good and solid API is always reasonable, and sacrificing code quality and robustness causes other problems that your precious autodocumentation cannot fix.

> How is one supposed to know if the argument is a fully qualified path, or a relative path to some other directory?

That's insane. How does POSIX.1 open() know? How does Common-Lisp's make-pathname know? How does Boost.Filesystem know?

Pick a different example besides relative paths. This is a solved problem; a strawman at best, and a demonstration that your whole argument is without merit at worst.

> I can't be more clear and I totally expect you to not understand that at all.

Of course you do! You think "How could anyone hate those little yellow tooltips that say 'absolute path required'" and you know that those little yellow tooltips are what make you productive enough to handle tasks you could never handle before.

Grow up and re-read what I've been saying here. I am saying I would trade those little yellow tooltips for good documentation or a good api.

> It is obvious you don't program enough of create sophisticated enough programs.

Seriously. People wrote "sophisticated programs" before xml, syntax hilighting and Visual Studio. How naive are you to think that others don't need the crutches that you do?

93 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-07 17:10 ID:T285NeS2

>>1

Banner is definitely TextMate, Monaco non-anti-aliased 10px. Mac classic theme.

94 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-25 07:02 ID:mLoeKCeT

I love Sudden View, unfortunately it's rather archaic and Windows-only.

95 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-25 20:59 ID:UGXKGZUt

XML comment:

/// <summary>
/// Summary of LoadXMLFromFile.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="FilePath">Description of FilePath parameter.</param>
public void LoadXMLFromFile(string FilePath)

Non-XML comment
/* Summary of LoadXMLFromFile
*
* @param Filepath Description of FilePath parameter.
**/
public void LoadXMLFromFile(string FilePath)

Or, Python-style:

def LoadXMLFromFile(FilePath):

"""Summary of LoadXMLFromFile

.. describe:: FilePath
Description of FilePath parameter.
"""

Notice the difference? With comments, you don't need a bunch of XML cruft obscuring the text.

96 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-26 08:43 ID:m2/rYnhV

>>95
And when it's that obvious from the function and variable names what's what, adding the comment at all actually reduces readability of the source.

97 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-26 22:41 ID:UGXKGZUt

>>96

Even a simple function like that needs documentation. Is FilePath absolute or relative? Should it be in Unicode, or the local filename encoding? What exceptions will be raised if the data cannot be loaded? Why is the return type "void" instead of the data, is it modifying private variables? If so, which ones?

When somebody says that a function's purpose is obvious, what they actually mean is "I'm too lazy/ignorant to figure out what that function does".

98 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-26 22:52 ID:WSPjSt/9

>>97

> Even a simple function like that needs documentation.

If it's a library function, and the source isn't available, I agree completely. However, that isn't a case for xml automatic documentation.

> Is FilePath absolute or relative?

If it matters, the function is wrong.

> Should it be in Unicode, or the local filename encoding?

If it matters, the function is wrong. This is more a symptom that the Windows API is designed by brain-damaged 3 year olds.

On windows: If it is a pathname, it should allow \\?\ and your programs should always begin all paths that they produce (but that the user does not produce) with \\?\

On unix: Doesn't fucking matter. Assume all paths are binary blobs unless you have to print them, at which point, they're utf-8.

There's a reason fchdir(open(".",O_RDONLY)) exists.

> What exceptions will be raised if the data cannot be loaded?

If it matters, the function is wrong. This demonstrates what is wrong with exceptions, and why they shouldn't be used by library code.

> Why is the return type "void" instead of the data,
> is it modifying private variables? If so, which ones?

That problem is orthogonal. Why isn't the return type "foop"? Why doesn't it read my mind?

This problem demands documentation, but doesn't demonstrate the value of XML autodocumentation.

> When somebody says that a function's purpose is obvious, what they actually mean is "I'm too lazy/ignorant to figure out what that function does".

I agree, but I don't think that's relevant.

99 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-27 06:36 ID:OBizW2LK

> If it's a library function, and the source isn't available, I agree completely. However, that isn't a case for xml automatic documentation.

Why isn't it? Auto documentation, XML-based or not, is also used for documenting libraries.

>> Is FilePath absolute or relative?
> If it matters, the function is wrong.

In this case, document how relative paths are resolved. Common roots I've seen are the user's home directory, their desktop, the location of the application binary, filesystem root, etc.

> On unix: Doesn't fucking matter. Assume all paths are binary blobs unless you have to print them, at which point, they're utf-8.

At which point, everybody using a non-UTF8 locale can't read their files.

> If it matters, the function is wrong. This demonstrates what is wrong with exceptions, and why they shouldn't be used by library code.

Fine, have it your way. Which error codes does it return? Or, if you're a LISP guy, which conditions does it set? Any way you look at it, you need the function to be able to do something aside from exit the program when the file it's trying to load from doesn't exist, or is malformed. And that error behavior should be documented for when you revisit the code in a few months trying to find a bug.

100 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-27 12:08 ID:WSPjSt/9

> Why isn't it? Auto documentation, XML-based or not, is also used for documenting libraries.

That doesn't mean it's good at it. Read back in this thread, through >>80,82,83,85,86,87,88,90,91,92

Recap: Automatic documentation makes it easy to extract structured information. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it useful, and because people rely on automatic documentation, they have a tendency to let "the real" documentation slip.

As a result, sites that use autodocumentation, tend to have worse documentation than sites that don't.

> In this case, document how relative paths are resolved. Common roots I've seen are the user's home directory, their desktop, the location of the application binary, filesystem root, etc.

See POSIX.1 to see how relative paths are resolved. On UNIX, the current-directory is per-process, so this is a non-issue.

On Windows, the current-directory is per-session, so it should only be queried for paths entered directly by a user. Win32 is remarkably consistant in this regard; if you're not doing it like Win32 does it, you're doing it wrong.

Relative paths are a solved problem.

> > On unix: Doesn't fucking matter. Assume all paths are binary blobs unless you have to print them, at which point, they're utf-8.
> At which point, everybody using a non-UTF8 locale can't read their files.

I don't think you program on UNIX often enough, or well enough to understand what you're saying. Almost all UNIX desktops are UTF-8; those that aren't frequently display some file names wrong at worst, but it doesn't prevent the user access to their files. It just prints the name wrong.

Non-desktop UNIX users tend to use a limited set of us-ascii for filenames simply to make them easier to type.

Programs should not attempt to decode pathnames given to them; they shouldn't as a rule attempt to decode /'s or ..'s except as a reason to reject the path outright.

> Fine, have it your way. Which error codes does it return? Or, if you're a LISP guy, which conditions does it set? Any way you look at it, you need the function to be able to do something aside from exit the program when the file it's trying to load from doesn't exist, or is malformed. And that error behavior should be documented for when you revisit the code in a few months trying to find a bug.

That means we need documentation, which I agree with. It doesn't mean we need autodocumentation.

It's fine to hold up the strawman of documentation and say "if we need documentation, then surely autodocumentation is good".

It isn't. Autodocumentation is bad. Real documentation isn't. They aren't related. Using autodocumentation tends to produce awful real documentation.

And see here: Real documentation needs to be really good, and that's hard. Microsoft has a hard time keeping their documentation correct, so what could lead me to believe a computer can document things better than Microsoft? Shouldn't I suspect good, real documentation require at least as much effort as Microsoft puts into it?

Autodocumentation tends to make companies and organizations skimp out on the real documentation. Autodocumentation was a trick to try and get the programmers to write documentation, never mind the fact the programmers they hire aren't able to write.

101 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-27 19:29 ID:UGXKGZUt

autodocumentation is ok. if its good enough for python and qt its good enough for me.

102 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-16 07:17 ID:Ddkq038V

kate and vi

103 Name: implicit!!zpFA+RSv : 2008-09-16 23:42 ID:jq14/JzN

I mostly use THE, but occasionally I also use vi (ex-vi in particular).

I actually really like se but it doesn't work on modern *nix. Maybe I should update and port it.

104 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-17 11:17 ID:Heaven

>>103
THE? se? Links.

105 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-17 11:18 ID:Heaven

>>103
THE? se? Links.

106 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-17 11:18 ID:Heaven

>>104,105
This place sucks :(

107 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-17 19:15 ID:tj7/Yqxf

>>95

HAHAHAHA

You need to learn a lot more about markup languages.

108 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-18 01:05 ID:tGotYw0e

ed for the win.

109 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-09-23 18:26 ID:HrTOniPH

>>104 >>105
THE: http://hessling-editor.sourceforge.net/
You can probably find the "se" source code in the comp.unix.sources archive.

Both are descended from XEDIT, an editor for IBM mainframes.

There's also a related editor that works on windows, Kedit.

110 Name: /vim/usr/uh : 2008-10-07 23:42 ID:ay9UkEIz

vim!

111 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-10-08 06:22 ID:GiFR+c1+

> You can probably find the "se" source code in the comp.unix.sources archive.

http://isc.org/sources/editors/se-1.3.php

I actually really like se but it doesn't work on modern *nix. Maybe I should update and port it.
http://www.gifford.co.uk/~coredump/se.htm
it compiles without any changes on ubuntu 8.04, i managed to get to compile and run on freebsd 7 with some minor modifications (removing a couple incorrect function declarations, replacing #include <termio.h> with #include <termios.h>, linking with libcompat, etc.; easy stuff)

112 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-10-08 06:22 ID:GiFR+c1+

> You can probably find the "se" source code in the comp.unix.sources archive.

http://isc.org/sources/editors/se-1.3.php

> I actually really like se but it doesn't work on modern *nix. Maybe I should update and port it.

http://www.gifford.co.uk/~coredump/se.htm
it compiles without any changes on ubuntu 8.04, i managed to get to compile and run on freebsd 7 with some minor modifications (removing a couple incorrect function declarations, replacing #include <termio.h> with #include <termios.h>, linking with libcompat, etc.; easy stuff)

113 Post deleted.

114 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-10-19 11:39 ID:Heaven

Autodocumentation is fine, but shitty autodocumentation is shitty.

Problem is, to add enough autodocs to turn API documentation into a usable manual, both formats (Javadoc proper and .NET XMLified crap) are inadequate as they add to much formatting cruft. It would be better if we could just write Markdown in there and not have to think about tags except when linking to another method...

115 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-02 13:25 ID:3qJa2MMY

Me, I usually write a small game to teach me a new language.
Learn how to use a library that interests you and do something with it, anything.
Like, learn SDL and make a little arcade game. Or a crappy music player using GTK. You get the point.
And keep some open source programs for reference (or use google's code search) when you get stuck at something.

116 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-02 13:31 ID:3qJa2MMY

>>115
Uhh, that post was supposed to go into another thread.

I've used first Visual Studio, then Emacs, then vim for a few years. Then I switched to nano and never looked back.
I use GEdit occasionally, too.

117 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-02 15:46 ID:8jr9/MCr

>>87

>do you name it "strPathName"

No, you establish proper hungarian notation standards for your project and/or company, and name it fqfnRequestedFile (or cfn for canonical filename after resolving links, etc), because the compiler doesn't need you to name the variable "str" to know that it's a string, and you're looking at the function definition where the parameter is declared as a string so a sane human wouldn't need the name to know that either.

Also to the people griping about how caring about relative vs absolute paths is wrong: consider the case of server applications with permissions on given directories, and you need to know what directory your file is actually in.

On topic: vim

118 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-06 18:15 ID:ucqkjwth

I use TECO.

I'm not even joking. It's a steep learning curve and it takes a little while to get used to, but so much power in so little space... literally every string of characters you can type on a standard US keyboard is a valid TECO command sequence. And yet the whole thing is small enough to fit on the tiniest embedded system!

Why yes, I am a total geek, how could you tell?

119 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-07 20:57 ID:Heaven

>>117
man 3 realpath

120 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-08 16:36 ID:Heaven

>>118

ITECO isn't that hard$

121 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-10 05:43 ID:Heaven

>>118
this TECO?

@^UB#@S/{^EQQ,/#@^UC#@S/,^EQQ}/@-1S/{/#@^UR#.U1ZJQZ\^SC.,.+-^SXQ-^SDQ1J#@^U9/[]-+<>.,/<@:-FD/^N^EG9/;>J30000<0@I/
/>ZJZUL30000J0U10U20U30U60U7@^U4/[]/@^U5#<@:S/^EG4/U7Q7;-AU3(Q3-91)"=%1|Q1"=.U6ZJ@i/{/Q2\@i/,/Q6\@i/}/Q6J0;'-1%1'
>#<@:S/[/UT.U210^T13^TQT;QT"NM5Q2J'>0UP30000J.US.UI<(0A-43)"=QPJ0AUTDQT+1@I//QIJ@O/end/'(0A-45)"=QPJ0AUTDQT-1@I//
QIJ@O/end/'(0A-60)"=QP-1UP@O/end/'(0A-62)"=QP+1UP@O/end/'(0A-46)"=-.+QPA^T(-.+QPA-10)"=13^T'@O/end/'(0A-44)"=^TUT
8^TQPJDQT@I//QIJ@O/end/'(0A-91)"=-.+QPA"=QI+1UZQLJMRMB\-1J.UI'@O/end/'(0A-93)"=-.+QPA"NQI+1UZQLJMRMC\-1J.UI'@O/en
d/'!end!QI+1UI(.-Z)"=.=@^a/END/^c^c'C>

122 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-11-12 19:06 ID:Heaven

>>121

Though, in TECO's defence, brainfuck interpreters look like that in every language.

123 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-07-31 16:35 ID:YRHXVedo

At work: VisualStudio + VisualAssist + nFringe
It just makes life much easier :P

At home: Notepad++ (Windows), CodeBlocks (Windows, Linux)

124 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-08-09 08:16 ID:WDeMYFTA

I seem to be the only one who uses Smultron, though I only use it on my Mac laptop (obviously).

Everywhere else I use good old vim.

125 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-08-09 15:02 ID:Heaven

I've used many editors and now I use emacs. I never looked back or doubted this choice.

126 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-08-17 17:53 ID:R8skxv0F

gedit

127 Name: drwho!q3bWZZD9/U : 2009-08-21 20:42 ID:kUHMMU34

C/C++ on windows I use bloodshed dev-c++ but on linux I use the gnome text editor or pico

128 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-08-24 08:40 ID:aQizSVZB

Source code in the title is dcraw.c.

129 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-01 22:38 ID:56IlfinL

I like emacs on Linux/OS X, but I use Vim if I must

130 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-01 23:58 ID:Heaven

>>129
What do you mean "if I must"? When do you have to use vim in place of emacs? (btw, are you aware of the vi-emulation mode of emacs? M-x vi-mode)

131 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-04 12:55 ID:Heaven

>>130 + tramp mode

132 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-06 18:39 ID:yok7+QsZ

I recently spent some time using ed, so much power in that small thing. You also learn much more about vi/vim by using it.

Other than that, vim. I'd use emacs if it weren't for the whole hand strain thing. Maybe at some point I'll make the switch to emacs+viper-mode, mostly because vimscript isn't as cool looking as elisp.

133 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-06 21:01 ID:Heaven

>>132
try yi. oatmeal with toenail clippings in it isn't as cool looking as haskell.

134 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-07 08:12 ID:Heaven

>>132
I get much more strain trying to capitalize with shift rather than using the ctrl key. Just find a way to press it without using your pinky (I prefer using my palm). The hand strain thing is not even an issue if you don't write much anyway.

135 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-09 19:27 ID:4i4Ixjz3

I use PSPad

I really like its FTP mode. I haven't seen any other editor that works like that.

136 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-14 00:11 ID:ARsUTpDU

TextMate and/or the editor built in Coda on Mac.

137 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-20 21:06 ID:agZYq/xP

jgrasp or notepad++ on windows, vim or emacs on linux (I still haven't decided which one I like better)

138 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-09-21 10:11 ID:TUKJrEYD

notepad++ on windows, (g)vim or gedit on linux

139 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-10-13 09:48 ID:DYnoXryM

notepad++/nano on windows, gedit/nano on linux

140 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-10-23 00:24 ID:Heaven

gedit, elvis, emacs on linux, depending on which computer.
gvim plus a crapton of scripts to make it much less vimmish on windows.

141 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-06 09:04 ID:B5jAbUcm

Notepad2 on Windows. Kate, vim and gVim on Linux. MacVim on Mac.

142 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-12 06:32 ID:TKZtG/mL

vi/vim
everything else is for fags.

143 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-14 10:02 ID:2FmlKxNS

Notepad++ on Windows, Textmate or nano on Mac, Gedit or nano on Linux.

144 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-15 20:41 ID:9GChxm6P

Emacs

145 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-16 14:51 ID:Heaven

Do we really have 144 programmers visitting this board or are you guys replying multiple times to this thread?...

146 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-17 00:45 ID:ZN30tPG6

Are there any free editors for windows that can properly indent LISP code besides emacs?

147 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2009-11-19 00:01 ID:Heaven

>>146
JazzScheme's editor seems able to handle CL as well. I don't know how well that works though.

148 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-26 23:26 ID:Heaven

149 Name: KnowItAll : 2009-12-13 00:30 ID:ghH/XhqR

gtkemacs

150 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-01-03 10:54 ID:JtVFPM6T

gVim for both Windows and Unix. If I really needed to compile something on my Windows box, I have Cygwin installed with g++.

151 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-01-06 02:19 ID:zpm2QycW

Is anyone Harverd or MIT?

152 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-01-11 14:29 ID:3CThj3iJ

Emacs

153 Name: : 2010-01-11 15:27 ID:VNAkD7gc

EditPadPro

154 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-01-12 01:05 ID:n8/kPzUB

qwe

155 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-03-19 23:45 ID:Heaven

>>134

Dunno if anyone's mentioned it, but you can change your keyboard bindings to switch the caps-lock key with the control key. It takes a little bit to get used to, but it makes much more sense, when you think about it. When's the last time you used caps lock (other than for cruise control) anyway?

156 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-03-28 04:15 ID:3xfCd8FJ

nvi, for editing in general.

>>39

>i've just discovered this: http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/
>it's much more lightweight than vim, and has the one feature i really wanted that nvi doesn't have: support for utf-8.
>i've been using nvi, but the lack of utf-8 support meant that i had to use some other editor (usually mined 2000) whenever i wanted to edit a utf-8 encoded file.

nvi has had UTF-8 support since 2000:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvi

>Sven Verdoolaege added support for Unicode in 2000.[3]
>BSD projects continue to use nvi version 1.79 due to licensing differences between Berkeley Database 1.85 and the later versions by Sleepycat Software.

Fucking tools.

157 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-04-11 14:39 ID:ziQQB/Tk

EditPad Lite.

If I've got to work in a *nix text mode, JOE.

158 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-04-28 17:55 ID:XgRSTUbY

VS a shit.

159 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-04-29 04:46 ID:o4qYr/4s

160 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-05-05 04:20 ID:QjMGRIOO

Nedit, nvi, GNU Emacs/XEmacs and Xedit.

Get on my level scrub.

161 Name: Wanda : 2015-05-31 01:53 ID:ZjyGJgk8

Sublime Text, vi on servers, Visual Studio is fine too.

Depends what I'm working on. If i'm working on some bloated e-commerce mess for a .net client, visual studio is opan obvious choice,

Everything else, ST or if unavailable vi

162 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-09 18:58 ID:QjMGRIOO

BSD vi, ed, mg on Unix. Sam and acme on Plan 9. Pe on Haiku.

163 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-14 16:44 ID:MuAco6xD

I like vim with solarized dark colorscheme and the linter syntastic. All is very comfortable that way.

164 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-17 22:27 ID:9e5Wccph

Well, I started with "vi" on my very first shell account (a SunOS 4.x box, back in 1995). No idea what exact version of vi it was, but I didn't have any colors or visual mode, or anything like that. Soon after that, I installed Slackware and started using "vi" there as well. And since I completely stayed away from Windows all these years (except when required for a job), I just kept using vi or vim.

Somewhere along the way I got the crazy idea to swap the Escape and CapsLock keys, using either xmodmap or its console equivalent (e.g. wsconsctl in OpenBSD). That made things a lot more comfortable...

Speaking of OpenBSD, their /usr/bin/vi program is a slightly enhanced version of nvi, because it allows you to split the screen and have several text windows displayed at once. I didn't even realize this until one of the developers mentioned it on openbsd.misc:

our vi has multiple windows.
:E new_file
then ^W to move from file to file.
:viusage
will give you some help.

Granted, the <Control-W> thing is explicitely mentioned in the manpage, but it doesn't explain the differences between the :e and :E commands. All it says is this:

 [Ee][dit][!] [+cmd] [file]
[Ee]x[!] [+cmd] [file]
Edit a different file.

But anyway, it's a nice feature to have (although I guess you could get similar functionality with tmux windows also).

I also know the basics of "ed", just in case - because at least /bin/ed is statically linked and might be the only thing available to edit files with if /usr is fubar, or the dynamic linker is broken. Well it's not like it's that much different from vi anyway...

Back in my home computer days, I mainly used Notepad on my Amiga 500 (it's the default editor there, but not identical to Windows Notepad). There was also uemacs (microemacs) on one of the Workbench floppies, but I didn't bother with it. I think AmigaBasic (the version shipped with Workbench 1.3) had its own IDE though. I played around with that, but didn't do much except write some character generators and other tools for our tabletop AD&D games.

Before that I had an Amstrad CPC and there of course just used the ROM BASIC screen editor. It works quite well, especially when you switch to 80-column mode (just typing "mode 2" at the prompt did the trick). Their BASIC dialect (Locomotive BASIC) was also fairly powerful, giving you access to many graphics and sound functions without needing to go through the PEEK/POKE mumbo-jumbo. That machine also shipped with CP/M disks, which contained an "ed" program but I didn't really bother with that.

165 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-18 08:30 ID:Heaven

>>164
there's no such thing as vi that doesn't have visual mode. perhaps you're thinking of ex?

166 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-18 13:06 ID:9e5Wccph

>>165
Sorry I meant no visual block operations (select, copy, paste) like vim has. Yeah, the SunOS vi was running in regular full screen mode.

Now the "mail" or "mailx" programs, those dropped you into ed or maybe ex by default, for some reason. I mostly used Pine those days, and only occasionally mail in command line mode, e.g.:
mail -s "hi there" recipient@host < msg.txt

Later on when I started doing sysadmin work, I found myself just telnet'ing to SMTP and POP3 ports a lot (for testing purposes). Those interfaces are actually pretty simple; there's just no nice command-line editing/history or saving of messages to "sent-mail" folder or whatever (unless you're logging the session via typescript or whatever).

167 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-06-26 20:32 ID:Qe6gX1aW

Emacs is love; Emacs is life.

168 Post deleted.

169 Post deleted.

170 Post deleted.

171 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2015-12-31 15:35 ID:gpLahnqO

mg

172 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2016-01-09 17:09 ID:nY1TTFUN

Been using textadept lately. Like it a lot.

173 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2016-01-12 05:34 ID:VpC1hp1e

>>171
I just started mg a few weeks ago after getting fed up once too often with emacs. It's certainly the best lite emacs out there. I wish it had:

- better support for unicode
- better documentation for binding things. Sometimes you have to put a \, sometimes a ^, and the examples are completely unhelpful.

I'd probably switch full time if it had syntax highlighting (yes, I'm weak) and if I had a good stand-alone LaTeX reformatter.

174 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2016-01-13 21:24 ID:jeG6gVFW

>>173

> syntax highlighting (yes, I'm weak)

Weak? Code isn't prose.

175 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2016-02-20 22:10 ID:ZgjHCsmF

I tried Spacemacs after using Vim for years, and have now settled on neovim.

176 Name: poop : 2016-02-21 07:21 ID:y1GFMfyW

tbh, php is shit. java is pretty dank though

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: