Author Topic: The Best Of: text editors (Read 193,428 times)

tranglos · « **Reply #125 on:** October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 18, 2009, 08:58 PM

Phew ... I wonder if there is one thing that EmEditor or UltraEdit can but Vim can't ...

At what cost, though? Between spending $20 on a text editor and 2 years on figuring out the basics of (g)vi(m), I'n not even hesitating

I've approached it on several occasions. I decided not to bother anymore when I saw this image in the Wikipedia article on vi:

[attach=#]

Note the placement of colon: somewhat awkwardly on the numeric row, but does not require the Shift key. On most keyboards today it does - and that's not convenient.

(I also take issue with the whole host of commands that take a repeat count argument. Vi(m) manuals love to elaborate on those, but how often do you count characters before you delete them? There's something to be said for Shift+nav keys selection! Of course one is free not to use those peculiarities, but then one would be sing vi as a more-or-less standard Windows editor. And for that, TextPad et al are better, because they are "more standard", if you will.)

Well, you asked

I won't speak ill of (g)vi(m) again!

Tuxman · « **Reply #126 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:13 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 18, 2009, 10:35 PM

Handle huge files efficiently?

Works. (Depending on your definition of "huge", but you should figure out first what a "text editor" is intended to do for you.)

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM

At what cost, though? Between spending $20 on a text editor and 2 years on figuring out the basics of (g)vi(m), I'n not even hesitating

A steep learning curve is common to most today's text editors. But Vim has a tutorial for that. Built-in.

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM

There's something to be said for Shift+nav keys selection!

Discard the "Shift" key thing, and you'll have the Visual Mode.

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM

then one would be sing vi as a more-or-less standard Windows editor

Nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM

And for that, TextPad et al are better, because they are "more standard", if you will.

A "standard" is the standard you define. Some say Office 2007 is a standard, too.

f0dder · « **Reply #127 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:32 AM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 06:13 AM

Quote from: f0dder on October 18, 2009, 10:35 PM
Handle huge files efficiently?
Works. (Depending on your definition of "huge", but you should figure out first what a "text editor" is intended to do for you.)

No, it doesn't - it handles "normal size" files just fine, but definitely not "huge" files. I fortunatnely don't need this functionality myself, but some people do.

VIM is cute and all, but it loads slower than Notepad++ and doesn't really offer me any tangible advantages. Sure, things like being able to quickly mark an inner {} block is nice, but I always forget the keystrokes and - frankly - I spend a lot more time thinking than typing

AbteriX · « **Reply #128 on:** October 19, 2009, 08:04 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 06:32 AM

Sure, things like being able to quickly mark an inner {} block is nice,
but I always forget the keystrokes and - frankly - I spend a lot more time thinking than typing

Being a VIM user myself (well, from time to time) i found that's nice
with HippoEDIT: just press Alt+ArrowDown inside of braces or quotes

(Read more... at point 19)

Tuxman · « **Reply #129 on:** October 19, 2009, 03:18 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 06:32 AM

it loads slower than Notepad++

Depends on your configuration.

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 06:32 AM

but I always forget the keystrokes

"ci}", "change inner }-block". Easier to understand than some weird Alt-Arrow-Metakey-Whirl-around-and-sing hotkeys.

I guess.

f0dder · « **Reply #130 on:** October 19, 2009, 03:24 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 03:18 PM

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 06:32 AM
it loads slower than Notepad++
Depends on your configuration.

Standard install of gvim vs standard install of Notepad++ - load speed noticably slower even running on a 10k rpm raptor drive; obviously worse when on a 7200rpm laptop drive.

Not saying vim is a bad editor, but it's not the end-all-be-all perfect tool for everybody.

Tuxman · « **Reply #131 on:** October 19, 2009, 03:33 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 03:24 PM

Standard install of gvim vs standard install of Notepad++

You can easily make N++ bloated by using too many plug-ins. You can easily keep your Vim tiny and fast by setting the right options (no colors, vi compatibility and stuff). I must confess, however, that I don't have any benchmarks about that. But I'm sure that Vim is the fastest might-be-used-as-an-IDE editor out there.

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 03:24 PM

it's not the end-all-be-all perfect tool for everybody.

If there was such a thing, no-one would need any other editor, right? That's the great thing about perfectness: There is always a thing that comes closer to it.

Lashiec · « **Reply #132 on:** October 19, 2009, 03:42 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 18, 2009, 08:58 PM

Phew ... I wonder if there is one thing that EmEditor or UltraEdit can but Vim can't ...

Being attractive, usable?

Tuxman · « **Reply #133 on:** October 19, 2009, 03:49 PM »

... bloated?

I can't see the attractiveness in dozens of toolbars. I don't even need a single one.

f0dder · « **Reply #134 on:** October 19, 2009, 04:03 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 03:33 PM

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 03:24 PM
Standard install of gvim vs standard install of Notepad++
You can easily make N++ bloated by using too many plug-ins. You can easily keep your Vim tiny and fast by setting the right options (no colors, vi compatibility and stuff). I must confess, however, that I don't have any benchmarks about that. But I'm sure that Vim is the fastest might-be-used-as-an-IDE editor out there.

NP++ isn't bloated in the standard install, which is what I'm talking about - and yet it has full syntax highlighting etc.

I wouldn't call gvim bloated either, but fact is that in standard install (with syntax highlighting and the features I want), it loads slower than NP++, and doesn't really offer any advantages for my usage patterns.

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 03:49 PM

I can't see the attractiveness in dozens of toolbars. I don't even need a single one.

Which toolbars?

[attachthumb=#]

...I could hide menubar, tabbar and statusbar if I wanted to, but I find those useful and I have enough screen real estate for them anyway.

Tuxman · « **Reply #135 on:** October 19, 2009, 04:13 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 04:03 PM

Which toolbars?

I was talking about UE this time ...

However:

*shrug*

Lashiec · « **Reply #136 on:** October 19, 2009, 04:14 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 03:49 PM

... bloated?

I can't see the attractiveness in dozens of toolbars. I don't even need a single one.

Just poking some fun at UNIX editors

. For the record I use Notepad2, which is anything but bloated. A single toolbar, and free as well. I have PSPad for more serious uses, but most times I end up using Code::Blocks. In my opinion, there's an extremely thin line between when to use a full featured text editor or a good IDE, so no wonder I end up crossing it.

Jussi Jumppanen · « **Reply #137 on:** October 20, 2009, 05:04 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 19, 2009, 03:24 PM

But I'm sure that Vim is the fastest might-be-used-as-an-IDE editor out there.

How do you define fastest?

Zeus is an IDE like editor and it starts in about a second, file load times are generally under a second and the keyboard response is always snappy.

Zeus even supports the project/workspace model and a workspaces with several thousand files will generally open in a second or two.

kartal · « **Reply #138 on:** October 20, 2009, 05:33 AM »

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM

Quote from: Tuxman on October 18, 2009, 08:58 PM
Phew ... I wonder if there is one thing that EmEditor or UltraEdit can but Vim can't ...

At what cost, though? Between spending $20 on a text editor and 2 years on figuring out the basics of (g)vi(m), I'n not even hesitating

I've approached it on several occasions. I decided not to bother anymore when I saw this image in the Wikipedia article on vi:
(see attachment in previous post)
Note the placement of colon: somewhat awkwardly on the numeric row, but does not require the Shift key. On most keyboards today it does - and that's not convenient.

(I also take issue with the whole host of commands that take a repeat count argument. Vi(m) manuals love to elaborate on those, but how often do you count characters before you delete them? There's something to be said for Shift+nav keys selection! Of course one is free not to use those peculiarities, but then one would be sing vi as a more-or-less standard Windows editor. And for that, TextPad et al are better, because they are "more standard", if you will.)

Well, you asked I won't speak ill of (g)vi(m) again!

You can customize all of that in Vim. I use Vim day and night and none of my setups are the ones that come by default with Vim or Gvim. Vim is very very configurable. There are not many tools out there that can use multiple keys as shortcuts to invoke commands or do somethings. I am a shortcut freak and I found the heaven in Vim. The only drawback of Vim is that it cannot handle couple keys so well (like , ,.) due to different terminal emulation modes it needs to satisfy on different platforms.

I also think that Gvim`s color syntax customization is superior to anything out there if you put your time into it. There is not any limit to it really. Most editors I have used in the past offered menu based customization, but the problem with that approach is that if something is not in the menu you cannot really change it. That is not the case with Gvim.

f0dder · « **Reply #139 on:** October 20, 2009, 07:10 AM »

Quote from: kartal on October 20, 2009, 05:33 AM

I also think that Gvim`s color syntax customization is superior to anything out there if you put your time into it. There is not any limit to it really.

Isn't VIM's highlighting scheme based on regular expressions, rather than proper lexing?

TucknDar · « **Reply #140 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:19 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 20, 2009, 07:10 AM

Quote from: kartal on October 20, 2009, 05:33 AM
I also think that Gvim`s color syntax customization is superior to anything out there if you put your time into it. There is not any limit to it really.
Isn't VIM's highlighting scheme based on regular expressions, rather than proper lexing?

Which, btw, is the case with EditPadPro's highlighting scheme.

tranglos · « **Reply #141 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:18 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 19, 2009, 06:13 AM

Quote from: tranglos on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM
And for that, TextPad et al are better, because they are "more standard", if you will.
A "standard" is the standard you define. Some say Office 2007 is a standard, too.

No, I meant "standard" as in "behaves more like every other Windows application". And yes, Office 2007 breaks with those standards all over the place, as does window management in Office 2003. That, too, annoys me :-)

Tuxman · « **Reply #142 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:26 PM »

Why should a multi-platform application (Vim, eclipse, ...) act like a Windows application?

tranglos · « **Reply #143 on:** October 20, 2009, 01:10 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on October 20, 2009, 12:26 PM

Why should a multi-platform application (Vim, eclipse, ...) act like a Windows application?

There's no law that it has to, but it's almost always better when it does.

(The following is a general remark, not related to the current state of g/vi/m):

It may no longer be the case now, but for years multiplatform apps rectricted themselves to the lowest common denominator of what's available on all supported platforms, and then further to what could be done via a remote terminal. So no arrow keys, because some systems didn't have those, no function keys, no shift key selection, etc. That was in the shell / telnet, but today I'm still seeing Java apps without context menus in text boxes. Or apps where Ctrl+C works, but Ctrl+Insert does not - because the clipboard support was hardwired manually and is incomplete. By contrast, when your application is native, it gets all the clipboard functionality for free, by "birthright", as it were.

It takes a lot of work to reimplement all the clipboard features or all the functionality something even relatively simple as a standard Windows textbox. Some multiplatform apps don't do that, and it's understandable. I just won't use them if they don't.

I'm weird that way. If the 'A' key does the same thing in every editor, I believe the 'Home' key should also do the same. Anything else strains my patience, and I've yet to find an app with enough redeeming features to compensate for feeling alien on Windows.

I think the fantastic success of FireFox on Windows is partly due to the fact that it respects Windows rules all the way. There's nothing unusual, nothing out of place about the FireFox UI. And I expect it does the same on Macs and other platforms it supports. It must have taken an enormous work to make it that way.

urlwolf · « **Reply #144 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:16 PM »

Some here know that I was a diehard vim user.
I have since moved to Jedit. It's heads and shoulders above any other editor I know. Surprisingly easy to configure, lots of plugins that work well together and update easily... even portable (if you put javaw on the same folder). And truly multiplatform.
I haven't had to touch a single config file since moving to jedit. With vim, I was tweaking my vimrc every day.

Tuxman · « **Reply #145 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:17 PM »

Quote from: tranglos on October 20, 2009, 01:10 PM

There's nothing unusual, nothing out of place about the FireFox UI.

Depends. You can turn off the menu bar (not "usual" on Windows), you can place everything anywhere (same), and "native" skins are supported since v3, before they were quite... well... "unusual".

Tuxman · « **Reply #146 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:18 PM »

Quote from: urlwolf on October 20, 2009, 03:16 PM

And truly multiplatform.

Java is just as multiplatform as C/C++. No libs, no execution.

Quote from: urlwolf on October 20, 2009, 03:16 PM

I haven't had to touch a single config file since moving to jedit. With vim, I was tweaking my vimrc every day.

I haven't touched my vimrc for weeks now. But I could tweak it a lot more, that's the point.

kartal · « **Reply #147 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:41 PM »

Quote from: TucknDar on October 20, 2009, 10:19 AM

Quote from: f0dder on October 20, 2009, 07:10 AM
Quote from: kartal on October 20, 2009, 05:33 AM
I also think that Gvim`s color syntax customization is superior to anything out there if you put your time into it. There is not any limit to it really.
Isn't VIM's highlighting scheme based on regular expressions, rather than proper lexing?
Which, btw, is the case with EditPadPro's highlighting scheme.

Sorry, I guess my claim was too ambitious. I have not used any of those commercial editors out there including EditPadPro.

I have used PsPad, Notepad++, Programmers NotePad, Editra etc. None of those satisfied my needs really(customization mainly). All are powerful and great. But when it comes to customization Gvim is the king in my view.

I use Python for some spesific application scripting and programming. So most of the libraries come from these applications and are not system wide things. That is why having ability to customize the colors or autocompletion properly was a big deal for me.

marcopolo2 · « **Reply #148 on:** November 25, 2011, 08:57 AM »

Quote from: fenixproductions on April 27, 2009, 10:24 PM

Very nice review but I wonder does any of them have my dream-like functionality: live filter with column mode

I hope its okay to updtae the thread as things have, moved on a bit in xml, take a look at Liquid XML Editor which is a fairly new entrant but very well built, just look at its fancy graphical interface.

tranglos · « **Reply #149 on:** November 25, 2011, 01:28 PM »

Quote from: marcopolo2 on November 25, 2011, 08:57 AM

I hope its okay to updtae the thread as things have, moved on a bit in xml, take a look at Liquid XML Editor which is a fairly new entrant but very well built, just look at its fancy graphical interface.

Looking good, thanks! If I didn't have my Oxygen licence, I'd definitely be giving this one a try.