Vim?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
I for one don't like jEdit.
Too heavy.
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
SonOfLilit wrote:
I for one don't like jEdit.
Too heavy.
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
I tried, but couldn't get used to the meta-something commands.
I know how to quit from emacs and vim though - without loosing changes.
But SciTE and jEdit fit my needs better.
Stefan
That's called TextMate. 
James Edward Gray II
On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:10 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
Hi,
i recently shifted to RoR and have being doing some extensive comparison on
IDEs best suiting RoR development. Now Scite comes with ruby, its free and
simple...so for a start, i would suggest that but the one which i liked was
eclipse with ruby plug in. I personally go for IDEs which are more hands on
and not intellesense base(like VB)...like Turbo C++ of old...also it depends
on which platform u are working on - windows / linux...personnaly i found
working in linux better and more fun...there a vi editor version is good
called Vim....anyway check out the following site...give a good
comparison...hope this helps..
On 3/19/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
> I for one don't like jEdit.
>
> Too heavy.
>
> How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?Vim?
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
Chad Perrin wrote:
I for one don't like jEdit.
Too heavy.
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
Vim?
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned the old "vi", you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that's been tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin XEmacs have a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux, Windows, Macs, Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that matter, though, so does Vim's "gvim" variant. (Notepad, mouse, Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris and probably BSD).
Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost any programmer can walk up to and use. There are some definitely distinctive and breakthrough concepts in editors for programmers, though. Check out Leo for another way to do it. 
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
Perhaps. Although I own a mac, I don't have spare $40 and do find
emacs nice enough to not switch.
If I'll start doing Ruby full time (I seem to be on a path to starting
a startup and still nothing is decided about what we will do, not to
speak of tech decisions, so that is reasonable) I would owe myself to
at least try it out, but now it's really not worth $40 for me.
Aur
On 3/26/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:10 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
> How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
That's called TextMate.
James Edward Gray II
James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:10 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
That's called TextMate.
James Edward Gray II
Or XEmacs
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
just Meadow/Emacs !!
On 3/19/07, arjun ghosh <arjun4ruby@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
i recently shifted to RoR and have being doing some extensive comparison
on
IDEs best suiting RoR development. Now Scite comes with ruby, its free and
simple...so for a start, i would suggest that but the one which i liked
was
eclipse with ruby plug in. I personally go for IDEs which are more hands
on
and not intellesense base(like VB)...like Turbo C++ of old...also it
depends
on which platform u are working on - windows / linux...personnaly i found
working in linux better and more fun...there a vi editor version is good
called Vim....anyway check out the following site...give a good
comparison...hope this helps..
Caseysoftware - Keith Casey's Corner of the InternetOn 3/19/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
> > I for one don't like jEdit.
> >
> > Too heavy.
> >
> > How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
>
> Vim?
>
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
> him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
> questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
>
--
sur
"is a String object" is a String object
http://expressica.com
Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>>I for one don't like jEdit.
>>
>>Too heavy.
>>
>>
>>How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
>>
>
>Vim?
>
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned the
old "vi", you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that's been
tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin XEmacs have
a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux, Windows, Macs,
Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that matter, though, so
does Vim's "gvim" variant. (Notepad, mouse, Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris
and probably BSD).
I beg to differ. Installed size for Vim as reported by APT: 1408 bytes.
Installed size for GNU Emacs as reported by APT: 5924 bytes. Last I
checked, including all dependencies, Emacs took up more than 80MB of
drive space, and Vim less than 20MB. It looks to me like Vim is getting
about *one fifth* as heavy as Emacs these days. I also tend to be less
prone to RSI when I'm not using Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift.
If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they're in the
same realm of "heavy".
By the way, yes -- XEmacs will run on FreeBSD, as does GVim (or however
the official capitalization goes).
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:06:22AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost any
programmer can walk up to and use. There are some definitely distinctive
and breakthrough concepts in editors for programmers, though. Check out
Leo for another way to do it.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> writes:
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned
the old "vi", you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that's
been tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin
XEmacs have a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux,
Windows, Macs, Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that
matter, though, so does Vim's "gvim" variant. (Notepad, mouse,
Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris and probably BSD).Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost
any programmer can walk up to and use.
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical "gvim" variant.
So I don't see convergence.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
hii
you can use activestate komodo for free for some days it's a good ide for
ruby i think
On 19/03/07, sur max <sur.max@gmail.com> wrote:
just Meadow/Emacs !!
On 3/19/07, arjun ghosh <arjun4ruby@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> i recently shifted to RoR and have being doing some extensive comparison
> on
> IDEs best suiting RoR development. Now Scite comes with ruby, its free
and
> simple...so for a start, i would suggest that but the one which i liked
> was
> eclipse with ruby plug in. I personally go for IDEs which are more hands
> on
> and not intellesense base(like VB)...like Turbo C++ of old...also it
> depends
> on which platform u are working on - windows / linux...personnaly i
found
> working in linux better and more fun...there a vi editor version is good
> called Vim....anyway check out the following site...give a good
> comparison...hope this helps..
> Caseysoftware - Keith Casey's Corner of the Internet
>
> On 3/19/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:10:04PM +0900, SonOfLilit wrote:
> > > I for one don't like jEdit.
> > >
> > > Too heavy.
> > >
> > > How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
> >
> > Vim?
> >
> > --
> > CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> > Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
> > him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
> > questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your
point."
> >
>--
sur
"is a String object" is a String object
http://expressica.com
--
Arun Agrawal
If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they're in the
same realm of "heavy".
I disagree this in any way matters on today's CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
David Vallner
Too Lazy to quote ALL relevant bits of the thread.
Good point.
I think that many IDEs are converging on a single design philosophy, to
some extent -- with outliers that buck the trends of course (both good
and bad examples). Other code editing tools, however, are not
converging, either with IDEs or each other.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:50:06AM +0900, David Kastrup wrote:
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> writes:
> Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned
> the old "vi", you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that's
> been tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin
> XEmacs have a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux,
> Windows, Macs, Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that
> matter, though, so does Vim's "gvim" variant. (Notepad, mouse,
> Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris and probably BSD).
>
> Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost
> any programmer can walk up to and use.Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical "gvim" variant.So I don't see convergence.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
One gvim user standing up and being counted.
m.
On 3/20/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical "gvim" variant.
I disagree that today's CPU and RAM stats obviate the need for slimmer
tools sometimes. For instance, I'm composing this email using mutt+Vim
over an SSH connection. While I'm only two rooms away from the system
where I'm accessing email, I have also been known to use the same means
of dealing with email from miles away, over the Internet. Under such
circumstances, at a bandwidth rate of less than 1Mbps, the "weight" of
the application is definitely of interest to me.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:51:31AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
> If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
> set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they're in the
> same realm of "heavy".
>I disagree this in any way matters on today's CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid
Martin DeMello wrote:
On 3/20/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical "gvim" variant.One gvim user standing up and being counted.
m.
gvim is my editor of choice on Windows systems, but I tend to use vim on Linux and even on Cygwin.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:51:31AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
> If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
> set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they're in the
> same realm of "heavy".
>I disagree this in any way matters on today's CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
I disagree that today's CPU and RAM stats obviate the need for slimmer
tools sometimes. For instance, I'm composing this email using mutt+Vim
over an SSH connection. While I'm only two rooms away from the system
where I'm accessing email, I have also been known to use the same means
of dealing with email from miles away, over the Internet. Under such
circumstances, at a bandwidth rate of less than 1Mbps, the "weight" of
the application is definitely of interest to me.
That's what "tramp" is for. It uses a shell connection on a tty (ssh,
sudo, su and a number of other possibilities including multihop) in
order to transparently edit files on a different account.
That way, one can use the local Emacs session for working with remote
files (or files from a different account, such as /su::/etc/fstab)
quite cheaply. No editor at all required on the remote site.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Sometimes, the remote site is the only place one has an appropriate
editor. Haven't you ever had to access email from someone else's
computer?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:10:18AM +0900, David Kastrup wrote:
Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:51:31AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
>> > If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
>> > set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they're in the
>> > same realm of "heavy".
>> >
>>
>> I disagree this in any way matters on today's CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
>>
>> (Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
>
> I disagree that today's CPU and RAM stats obviate the need for slimmer
> tools sometimes. For instance, I'm composing this email using mutt+Vim
> over an SSH connection. While I'm only two rooms away from the system
> where I'm accessing email, I have also been known to use the same means
> of dealing with email from miles away, over the Internet. Under such
> circumstances, at a bandwidth rate of less than 1Mbps, the "weight" of
> the application is definitely of interest to me.That's what "tramp" is for. It uses a shell connection on a tty (ssh,
sudo, su and a number of other possibilities including multihop) in
order to transparently edit files on a different account.That way, one can use the local Emacs session for working with remote
files (or files from a different account, such as /su::/etc/fstab)
quite cheaply. No editor at all required on the remote site.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.