Notepad++ has Help file; hex editor plugins

[cathie28]

On current best text editor reviews, as of 8/23/2012, comments on Notepad++ are:
no help file
no hex edit

Version I'm using -  5.9.6.2 - definitely has a built in Help file.
It doesn't have much hex editing capability, but has very capable hex editor plugins.  It's hex editor plugins may / may not be the "best," but the review category is "text editors."

One of most attractive features about NP++ is the wide range of excellent plugins.  Several I've tried (out of ? > 100 ?), work seamlessly.
NP++ site / author also rates plugins on quality / stability & how well maintained they are.  Many of the plugins have their own forums (many on Sourceforge) or own websites / forums.

Notepad++ itself is well maintained.

[Renegade]

I've periodically used Notepad++ as I've been using Editplus for about 10 years or so now, and the last time I checked Notepad++ (a month or so ago), it was simply excellent. I'd recommend it to anyone.

The current version that I have is the portable version (ZIP file) and v6.1.5 and it has documentation - pure HTML files in directories. No CHM. And none of that online help nonsense that doesn't work when you aren't connected to the Internet -- a pet peeve of mine for documentation.

And hex editing can be had with a plugin - not a big deal. Though in Editplus the actual text editor displays the hex value for wherever the cursor is - which I've found valuable on more than one occasion. Notepad++ lacks that - is it in the hex editor plugin? I've not tried it.

There's really nothing to complain about in Notepad++. I don't know why someone would complain about the help file - the documentation is there...

[cathie28]

Holy antique reviews, Batman!

How long are you going to leave the old, outdated reviews for many of the text editor software up, before updating them?  I'm sure Ultraedit is quite good & you probably make $ for promoting it - that's fine.

But you gloss over many of them, that have improved greatly since you reviewed them.  Notepad++ is now one of the most widely respected editors.  Especially if you consider all the plugins.  You gloss over it (& some others) like they were slightly above Notepad.

If you're not going to be fair & up to date on the reviews, just take them down & only advertise Ultraedit .

[barney]

If you're not going to be fair & up to date on the reviews, just take them down & only advertise Ultraedit .

-cathie28 (May 24, 2013, 05:09 PM)

???

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 ...?

[Jibz]

How long are you going to leave the old, outdated reviews for many of the text editor software up, before updating them?  I'm sure Ultraedit is quite good & you probably make $ for promoting it - that's fine.

-cathie28 (May 24, 2013, 05:09 PM)

I think you can rest assured nobody was getting money or otherwise being compensated for a positive review on this site. It is simply because it reflects the experience and evaluation of the reviewer at that time, given what the editors available were like back then.

If you're not going to be fair & up to date on the reviews, just take them down & only advertise Ultraedit .

-cathie28 (May 24, 2013, 05:09 PM)

The review was last updated seven years ago, and I agree that is showing. It is a huge effort to write a review like that, and I am afraid equally huge keeping it up to date. The official reviews which were a big part of DonationCoder in the first years, have not really been done since then -- instead the forums thrived and became the driving force of the site, and user reviews started to appear here.

You could argue that the old reviews should be taken down. On the other hand, they are marked clearly with dates, and point to the forums for further discussion (like these).

[cathie28]

???

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 ...?

-barney (May 25, 2013, 12:23 AM)

"???" 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++:

Column mode: No. Yes
Hex mode: No. Yes
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.

[wraith808]

The site isn't getting *any* compensation for clicked links.  In fact, I personally talked to IDM about getting a discount for our members a while ago, and they wouldn't even do that.  There is no affiliation anywhere.

The reviews and such were done by DoCo as a service to the community a while ago.  And at that time, the difference was that stark. Doing something for nothing for the community might be alien in many cases, but that's just how DoCo is.  And as such, it takes a community of volunteers to keep everything going... and that's one part of the site that's fallen down. 

No one is disagreeing that the review is out of date.  No one is making excuses for the fact that it is there.  But it just hasn't become a priority... it will get fixed as it does, and as long as it has a date on it, it seems that it's not that big of deal.  Especially not for as big of a fuss as you're making over software that I'm assuming you have no connection to?

[mouser]

I feel your pain in terms of the reviews being out of date.

I'll just expand a bit on what wraith said.

When we jumped into doing our reviews we tried to be really comprehensive and opinionated.

That combination was on one hand quite useful to readers -- as it really sought to evaluate programs deeply and make a serious recommendation to people to help them make a choice.  As Wraith said, we get absolutely no compensation of any sort from companies whose products we reviewed.

But such an approach proved very hard to maintain in the long run -- first because trying to keep such reviews up to date was just a task that was beyond our volunteer efforts.  And second because the reviews were so opinionated, trying to update them to reflect changing opinions or the opinions of anyone but the original author was impractical.

As such -- those reviews need to be viewed as snapshots in time of one person's evaluation of things as they stood at the time of the review.

One of the reasons we've stopped focusing on reviews was a recognition of how difficult it was for these reviews to hold up after a couple of years.

Instead we've shifted to more focused shorter read-written "mini-reviews" of programs that you can find posted on the forum.

At some point we may just remove the big reviews from the site entirely -- though they still do serve as a useful starting point for people who don't know what features they should be looking for, etc.

Perhaps what we should do is just add some big bold text at the top stating that the review is X years old and out of date.

I've spent some time thinking of ways to improve this.. but I haven't yet brought these ideas to life.

[barney]

Perhaps what we should do is just add some big bold text at the top stating that the review is X years old and out of date.

-mouser (May 25, 2013, 06:28 PM)

That would seem to be viable, and perhaps to quell outbursts as originated this particular thread.  Just a strong statement of the review date would, I should thimk, be sufficuent, at least until such time as an alternative might be reached.