Editors.

Editors.

Post by ynop » Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:00:00



Ok...
I have been looking around in ports and the web and asking around for a test
editor for FBSD.  Something designed with coding in mind.   I currently use
UltraEdit (www.ultraedit.com).  It has syntax hightlighting, multiple files
open, editable pull down menus, compiler output window, spell checking, and
countless other features.  I can't find anything that comes close.    I
know, I know .. use emacs.  Ok,  let me spend all my free time messing with
emacs to get it to do what I want, plus it doesn't have the pretty GUI.  I
know that GUI isn't everything .. but when it comes to coding ANYTHING that
slows down my thought processes is BAD.

I have found one such program that (after talking with the author) is a
clone of UltraEdit - but like all free software, it is incomplete and
UNreliable.

The other suggestion that everyone throws at me is WINE....  and what can I
say ? "If I wanted to be running windows programs I would be using windows -
after all I did buy the damn thing".  So as you can see WINE (although a
good program) is not a option for me.

If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
should be, totally language independent.

Thanks for all the help..

YNOP

http://www.latech.edu/~jta001

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Tony Porcz » Sat, 01 May 1999 04:00:00



> I have been looking around in ports and the web and asking around
> for a test editor for FBSD.  Something designed with coding in
> mind.  [...]  It has syntax hightlighting, multiple files open,
> editable pull down menus, compiler output window, spell checking,
> and countless other features.

More than half of the above you can solve by opening multiple
windows on your X desktop.  By the way, *spell checking* in an
editor designed for coding?

Quote:> [emacs], plus it doesn't have the pretty GUI.  I know that GUI
> isn't everything .. but when it comes to coding ANYTHING that slows
> down my thought processes is BAD.

I'm confused.  How does "pretty GUI" (whatever that means) accelerate
your thought process?

Quote:> I have found one such program that (after talking with the author)
> is a clone of UltraEdit - but like all free software, it is incomplete
> and UNreliable.

You might be using a wrong OS then.  If I were you I would switch
to Windows 98 to have something complete, reliable, and un-free.

Quote:> The other suggestion that everyone throws at me is WINE....

[--*--]  Huh?  You are looking for a coding editor, and
*EVERYONE* throws WINE at you?  I hope it's a good Pinot Noir.

Quote:> about here - you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the
> way a coding environment should be, totally language independent.

Could you please elaborate on this "language independent" part?

And btw, the answer is multiple windows (unless it slows your
thinking process) and vim.

t.

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Philip Hallstro » Sat, 01 May 1999 04:00:00



>Ok...

[looking for a good editor snipped]

I haven't used emacs so won't comment.  vim is awesome and has some GUI elements
- I haven't used them, but I think it's fully menu'd and all that.  Multiple
  windows, the whole shebang.  It's awesome.

There's also CoolEdit... I think that's the name.  Again, I haven't used it, but
from what I remember it sounds like your UltraEdit...

good luck -philip

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Tony Voe » Sat, 01 May 1999 04:00:00



> editor for FBSD.  Something designed with coding in mind.   I currently use
> UltraEdit (www.ultraedit.com).  It has syntax hightlighting, multiple files
> open, editable pull down menus, compiler output window, spell checking, and
> countless other features.  I can't find anything that comes close.

Have you tried nedit? Nedit has syntax highlighting, client/server mode,
regular expressions and is easy to use. Compiler output and spell
checking can be done with the shell menu.

tv

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Michael Maxwel » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00



> If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
> you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
> should be, totally language independent.

XEmacs
'nuf said.

--

              -- Stop the illegal attacks on Serbia NOW! --

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Donn Mille » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00




> > If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
> > you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
> > should be, totally language independent.

> XEmacs
> 'nuf said.

I second that.  Vim is pretty nice, too.  I haven't had the time to see
how it does syntax color coding, though.

Donn

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Vlad Chubu » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00





> > > If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
> > > you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
> > > should be, totally language independent.

> > XEmacs
> > 'nuf said.

> I second that.  Vim is pretty nice, too.  I haven't had the time to see
> how it does syntax color coding, though.

> Donn

What you think about nedit. I use it and think it's nice too.

Vlad

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Vlad Chubu » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00





> > > If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
> > > you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
> > > should be, totally language independent.

> > XEmacs
> > 'nuf said.

> I second that.  Vim is pretty nice, too.  I haven't had the time to see
> how it does syntax color coding, though.

> Donn

What you think about nedit. I use it and think it's nice too.

Vlad

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Michael Maxwel » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00





> > > If you have the time and really want to know what I am talking about here -
> > > you really need to check out UltraEdit .. it is the way a coding environment
> > > should be, totally language independent.

> > XEmacs
> > 'nuf said.

> I second that.  Vim is pretty nice, too.  I haven't had the time to see
> how it does syntax color coding, though.

I use "gvim" on a '95 box at work (ugh), and it does quite nicely at
syntax coloring, but it's a little annoying to setup sometimes.

--

              -- Stop the illegal attacks on Serbia NOW! --

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Michael Maxwel » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00



> What you think about nedit. I use it and think it's nice too.

I've  used nedit before.  It's OK, but I think it's rather annoying
the extent to which you have to use the mouse to do certain things.

I never really explored it too much, so don't quote me on this, but
it didn't seem to have nearly the functionality of say, "vi", and it
wasn't even close to *emacs...

--

              -- Stop the illegal attacks on Serbia NOW! --

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Kresimir Kumeric » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00



> What you think about nedit. I use it and think it's nice too.

 Now that you mentioned it, nedit I got with FBSD3.0R (version
5.0.2) has an awkward gray area between the menu-bar and the text
input area.  Does anybody have any idea what is the problem
and how to solve it? It's really annoying (and I don't have
Motif to try to compile it myself). Thanks,

--
-------------------------------------------------------------

Theoretical Physics Department, University of Zagreb, Croatia
-------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smit » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00




> > What you think about nedit. I use it and think it's nice too.

>  Now that you mentioned it, nedit I got with FBSD3.0R (version
> 5.0.2) has an awkward gray area between the menu-bar and the text
> input area.  Does anybody have any idea what is the problem
> and how to solve it? It's really annoying (and I don't have
> Motif to try to compile it myself). Thanks,

> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------

> Theoretical Physics Department, University of Zagreb, Croatia
> -------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I had that problem too.  Download a new copy from the packages -
that is what I did and it fixed the problem for me.

Also, I was able  to successfully compile nedit using lesstif.

--




University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
USA

Phone (573) 882 4540
Fax   (573) 882 1869

http://math.missouri.edu/~stephen

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Tom Keat » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00


[snip re: the "grey line" (vestigal statistics line?)]
Quote:

> Yes, I had that problem too.  Download a new copy from the packages -
> that is what I did and it fixed the problem for me.

> Also, I was able  to successfully compile nedit using lesstif.

My curiosity was piqued so as an experiment i downloaded lesstif
via ports, then i attempted to download nedit, also via ports, also
as an experiment.

I wanted to see if the ports mechanism had the smarts to recognize
the presence of lesstif or get it as a dependency, and build
accordingly.  All i got was a terse message about the requirement
for Motif.  Ny curiosity was at least satisfied for that question,
but then i wondered about compiling from the plain,
unoptimized-for-one-particular-OS source ---  "straight from the
horses mouth."

Make'ing the linux target (there was no freebsd target) was oh so easy.
It seems to run fine under Linux emulation.

FWIW, all this is with nedit-5.0.2 and IIR the version no. correctly,
lesstif-0.82 on FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE.

Next, i intend to download the package as you suggest, and compare
running nedit under Linux emu to running it natively ... the trouble
with "answers" is, they lead to further questions ...

After all that, i shall revert to emacs -nw in an xterm  ;)

At least i can say that built-for-Linux NEdit runs on FreeBSD with
LessTif and no Motif.

cheers,
        tom

--
Why not just drop everything and go fishin'?

        remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smit » Sun, 09 May 1999 04:00:00




> [snip re: the "grey line" (vestigal statistics line?)]

> > Yes, I had that problem too.  Download a new copy from the packages -
> > that is what I did and it fixed the problem for me.

> > Also, I was able  to successfully compile nedit using lesstif.

> My curiosity was piqued so as an experiment i downloaded lesstif
> via ports, then i attempted to download nedit, also via ports, also
> as an experiment.

> I wanted to see if the ports mechanism had the smarts to recognize
> the presence of lesstif or get it as a dependency, and build
> accordingly.  All i got was a terse message about the requirement
> for Motif.  Ny curiosity was at least satisfied for that question,
> but then i wondered about compiling from the plain,
> unoptimized-for-one-particular-OS source ---  "straight from the
> horses mouth."

Yes, I forgot about that.  You have to edit the Makefile so that
it skips this error message.  Basically, remove, or put a # at
the beginning of, the line that is:

REQUIRES_MOTIF=        yes

(After installing lesstif, that is.)

--




University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
USA

Phone (573) 882 4540
Fax   (573) 882 1869

http://math.missouri.edu/~stephen

 
 
 

Editors.

Post by Steven G. Kar » Sun, 09 May 1999 04:00:00





> [snip re: the "grey line" (vestigal statistics line?)]

>> Yes, I had that problem too.  Download a new copy from the packages -
>> that is what I did and it fixed the problem for me.

>> Also, I was able  to successfully compile nedit using lesstif.

> My curiosity was piqued so as an experiment i downloaded lesstif
> via ports, then i attempted to download nedit, also via ports, also
> as an experiment.

The lesstif port is extremely out-of-date.  It is stuck at 0.87.1
(at least in the -current tree).  Build 0.88.1. from ftp.hungry.org.

Nedit works well with 0.88.1.

Edit /etc/make.conf to define HAVE_MOTIF.

--
Steve