Easy text editor.

Easy text editor.

Post by Steven R. Robertso » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00



The tkdesk file browser/appbar comes with a small built in editor.
If you've been working in the MS environment it seems intuitive
because Cntl-X is cut Cntl-C is copy, etc.

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Bob Nelso » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> "Intuitive software = Anything you already know how to use"
> A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.  
> Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.  
> ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
> already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
> Windows 95.  I can't think of any reason why this interface
> can't be implemented on a Linux console.  
> Yes It's limited, weak and is only good for editing small
> scripts, but that is what new users need to do.

> vim ( vi/2 ? )=  294812
> joe = 173,636
> jed = 133,660
> EDIT.COM = 69,886
> Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
> version

There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.

I think the newbies coming over to our side need to get an
immediate understanding (and appreciation) of the Unix philosophy.
Getting familiar with ``ed'' (which embodies virtually all tenets
of that philosophy) is a wonderful indoctrination our way of
thinking.

-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root        42920 Jan 25 16:37 /bin/ed*

--
========================================================================

       Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
      Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by forgel » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00


"Intuitive software = Anything you already know how to use"

A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.  
Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.  
ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
Windows 95.  I can't think of any reason why this interface
can't be implemented on a Linux console.  

Yes It's limited, weak and is only good for editing small
scripts, but that is what new users need to do.

vim ( vi/2 ? )=  294812
joe = 173,636
jed = 133,660
EDIT.COM = 69,886

Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
version

PS : I am not a programer

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Chuck Bermingha » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00





> There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
> EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
> rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.

Bob--are we talking about the same thing?  The "edit.com" program this guy
seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good.  There is (as I
remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
shipped with DOS 2.0.  I used to use it, and I hated the *y thing
almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.

Windows 95 has essentially the same editor in a 32-bit version, but I think
it's no longer tied to Qbasic directly; in fact, I'm pretty upset that
Microsoft didn't make a 32-bit version of qbasic for Windows 95.  The
32-bit "edit" program seems to be able to handle huge files, which is
really nice.

There is a "wpe" editor for Linux.  I don't think it's supported anymore,
and the source is in German.  It has a version also called "xwpe."  Both of
these would make a DOS 5+ "edit" user happy.  I've seen it around on places
like Sunsite, and I believe Red Hat's "contrib" directory has an RPM for
it.

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Bob Nelso » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00






> > There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
> > EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
> > rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.

> Bob--are we talking about the same thing?  The "edit.com" program this guy
> seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
> to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good.  There is (as I
> remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
> shipped with DOS 2.0.  I used to use it, and I hated the *y thing
> almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.

EDIT.COM good? I know which one you're talking about.

1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
    forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
3). There are no named registers.
4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
    prefixes to access the menu.

....and on and on...

Please, don't defend that poorly written editor -- especially when the
Unix world has offered vastly superior solutions for over a quarter
century.

--
========================================================================

       Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
      Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Chri » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> EDIT.COM good? I know which one you're talking about.

> 1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
> 2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
>     forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
> 3). There are no named registers.
> 4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
> 5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
>     prefixes to access the menu.

Well, the original poster was specifically talking about an inuititive editor,
and even defined intuiutive, as 'software you already know how to use (a great
definition, by the way). So let's look at these points one by one in this
context . . .

1). Where's the support for regular expressions?

That might be nice, but the average user has no use for regular expressions, so
this doesn't really matter.

2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
    forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).

That almost sounds like a joke. If you can actually argue that to the casual
user, 'hjkl' are more intuitive than the arrow keys for moving the cursor, go
for it.

3). There are no named registers.

Like regular expressions, this is a who cares.

4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.

I can see where this would be useful - you could open all .pl files at once, for
example. Here's where having the source code would be nice - this would have
been fixed almost immediately.

5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
    prefixes to access the menu.

Non-standard? Only if you've never used Windows before. And what would you use
if not Alt-keys or the mouse? All the other keys are for typing.

Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
non-techies.

When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Lord 4m » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>Bob--are we talking about the same thing?  The "edit.com" program this guy
>seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
>to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good.  There is (as I
>remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
>shipped with DOS 2.0.  I used to use it, and I hated the *y thing
>almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.

Are you reffering to edlin?

Quote:>Windows 95 has essentially the same editor in a 32-bit version, but I think
>it's no longer tied to Qbasic directly; in fact, I'm pretty upset that
>Microsoft didn't make a 32-bit version of qbasic for Windows 95.  

Why would the do that? They want you to buy Visual Basic, of course.

Quote:>The
>32-bit "edit" program seems to be able to handle huge files, which is
>really nice.

I believe it can also handle multiple files, which is something Dos edit could
not do..

Quote:>There is a "wpe" editor for Linux.  I don't think it's supported anymore,
>and the source is in German.  It has a version also called "xwpe."  Both of
>these would make a DOS 5+ "edit" user happy.  I've seen it around on places
>like Sunsite, and I believe Red Hat's "contrib" directory has an RPM for
>it.

If you REALLY REALLY must use Dos edit, then you could run it under DOSemu, of
course. Besides, EMACS isn't extremely hard to use...
-------------------
Welcome to where time stands still, where no one leaves and no one will...
 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Lord 4m » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
>2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
>    forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
>3). There are no named registers.
>4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
>5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
>    prefixes to access the menu.

Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs don't
even have that much.

Quote:>....and on and on...

>Please, don't defend that poorly written editor -- especially when the
>Unix world has offered vastly superior solutions for over a quarter
>century.

This wasn't a matter of DOS edit being superior or not. The original poster
wanted to know if there was an "edit-like" editor out there for unix for
newbies and such.

>--
>========================================================================

>       Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
>      Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...

-------------------
Welcome to where time stands still, where no one leaves and no one will...
 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Arthur Corli » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
>sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
>Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>non-techies.

>When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???

<G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it.  Where else can you do so much
with such efficiency?  Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards are
more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast.  The day
edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement.  And how about multiple
buffers?  Edit isn't it.

        --Arthur Corliss
          Corliss Consultancy
          Anchorage, Alaska

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by David M. Co » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Easy text editor.

Organization: http://www.kernel-panic.com/
Followup-To:
x-no-archive:

What's wrong with we?  It has an interface familiar to DOS users, runs under
X as xwe, has a fairly powerful feature set and doesn't use any unusual
toolkits.  It has a full programming environment when invoked as xwpe.

I haven't used joe, but it seems to be well liked by some of beginners I've
talked to.  And there's also pico.

Under X there is Nedit, TkDesk edit and GRASP.


>Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
>version

Does this really matter that much anymore?  

Dave Cook

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Mike Whit » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
>    prefixes to access the menu.

>Non-standard? Only if you've never used Windows before. And what would you use
>if not Alt-keys or the mouse? All the other keys are for typing.

  I'm trying to find the ALT keys and mouse on my wy99gt terminal....

Quote:>Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
>sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
>Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>non-techies.

  The EDIT.COM editor is *so* simple that it can't even handle
  the filenames from the underlying OS.  

Quote:>When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???

   95% of it makes perfect sense if you take a moment to just *think*
   about it.  Pick any aspect of Unix that you find "weird" and I'll
   be glad to explain why it actually makes sense.
 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Mike Whit » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs don't
>even have that much.

   So you'd propose an editor for you users that isn't guaranteed to
   work from all you terminals?  Where's the ALT-key on a classic
   Mac or a wy99gt terminal?

   The idea of a menu-driven editor has been tried many times under
   Unix.  But how do you write an editor with ALT-key, menu & mouse
   support when most terminals lack an ALT-key and a mouse?  Almost
   every vendor I've worked with had some console-specific editor
   that the users in favour of the tried and true editors of Unix.

   BTW, both 'vim' (do people still use 'vi'?) and 'emacs' have
   menus.  And as is to be expected, most people ignore them.

   For newbies who have no requirement to learn lots of Unix tools,
   I give them  vuepad (hp), notepad (cde), or pico (everything).
   They aren't "EDIT.COM" but that's not a *bad* thing...

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Chri » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> <G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it.  Where else can you do so much
> with such efficiency?  Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards are
> more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast.  The day
> edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
> compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement.  And how about multiple
> buffers?  Edit isn't it.

>         --Arthur Corliss
>           Corliss Consultancy
>           Anchorage, Alaska

Since this this thread (way back when it was started, about 30 hours ago) was a cry
for a user-friendly, intuitive editor, I thought I'd better fire a preemptive strike
against vi. My motivation, I'll confess, might not be entirely Socratic; I hate vi.
From the moment I first had to use it in school. I thought it was the stupidest, most
perverse and irritating thing imaginable. I couldn't believe that people sat down to
write a text editor and came up with this.

That being said, I'll acknowledge that vi means an awful lot to an awful lot of
people. And that can't be ignored. It obviously speaks to the programmer mini-brain
inside computer peoples' heads, in a way Notepad never will. So I can repsect you
sticking up for vi; after all, it's personal.

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Shaw » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> >Your post made me really made, because you're forcing
> >sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away
> >Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors
> >from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious
> >non-techies.

this is neat! I used to think the same thing. My first real job was
managing tech support for unix software company...nevermind the fact I
didn't know anything about unix :)). But I hated vi! hated, hated, hated
until I saw the head guru programmer do stuff that was so unbelievable, ,
writing to files, inserting from files,drawing diagrams of complete tty
susbsytems with - & + & = & how they work, running stuff through
compilers, switching ttys on the console between stuff...anyways...it
would take me 2 days & a flowchart program. But that was when I said he
must be doing this for a reason...& yes, it's much faster & cooler when
you know some of it. (though I suck but use it all the time now) I hate
edit.com I vote for vi.

SO anyways it reminded me of a court reporter ( those people that type
down the stuff for those that are asleep )I met, she had a 386 b/w laptop
with wordperfect for dos. I asked why not upgrade? She said it is much
faster with dos wp & that's what they used. SHe was right, when you know
it those with wp dos are TONS faster than gui word95,97,98 etc..the more
things change, the more they stay the same.

Have a great day!
Shawn

 
 
 

Easy text editor.

Post by Ralph Blac » Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Hey,

Try nedit,   Its great.

Chip