Other than a simple statement of preference, I didn't see any downside to that review. It reinforced the original post. Mayhap I missed something, but ...?
"???" indeed. I've no idea what is confusing. Not talking about the review for Ultraedit. The reviews for some software are ~ 8 yrs old. Eight year old reviews on actively developed software are useless
& a waste of good web pages. Like keeping 8 yr old reviews for computers.
We have no hesitation recommending UltraEdit as the Best Text Editor available today.
In which decade? It's also $60 U.S.
I'm sure many of the softwares barely mentioned are far more advanced now & probably deserve more than a few lines.
Some are probably as good as current Notepad++ in their own right.
Those aren't reviews. They're bare bones info - like off a d/l site.
I'm sure info on other editors mentioned is also incorrect. Here are a few errors in the review on Notepad++:
User Tools: n/a What user tools would those be? There are many plugin tools.
No help file available. Excellent Help File & other documentation; Active Forum
If the site isn't getting some compensation (even for clicked links), then devoting 3 + pages to Ultraedit is... odd.
Compare to the 10 lines for Notepad++ (& others
), making them sound like they're not in the same universe w/ Ultraedit. NPP, with quality plugins (pick what YOU need) is one of the most advanced & certainly most popular editors today. And it's FREE, open source. The review info for it & some others is now just plain wrong. Some possibly wrong at the time of review. Avg readers generally aren't going to come from that page to slog through comments here.