Talk:Comparison of text editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Inclusion of other text/code-based HTML editors?

It seems that this discussion and article are including information about the editors and features applicable to use in web-editing. Is there any reason why some of the other editors listed in List of HTML editors#Text/HTML editors are not also here? (TopStyle and Macromedia HomeSite for instance) Since the Comparison of HTML editors is pointing to Comparison of text editors for all non-WYSIWYG HTML editors, it'd probably be good to cover them here. Thoughts? jwilkinson 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Emacs and Remote editing

Emacs does in fact support ftp, ssh and http remote editing through the TRAMPS interface. It can be downloaded for GNU Emacs v21 and it is part of the latest development releases (what will be Emacs v22). So I think the boxes should be checked as yes, or at least mention there is a plugin for this. See http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/TrampMode#toc1 for more details.

[edit] Ack! Yet more questions about MDI

Several editors can edit multiple documents by displaying one document buffer and hiding the rest. This is similar to a tabbed window interface, except no tabs are shown.

Most of the vi clones support such a MDI, including vim and nvi. IIRC, even traditional vi has primitive support for such an interface.

Although I'm not an emacs user, I believe that XEmacs and GNU Emacs also can edit multiple files in a similar fashion.

Perhaps we need an 'other' column for MDI? Or we could call it 'tabless tabs'  ;)

(Oopsie -- missed the comment by Smjg 14:34, 11 Mar 2005. He basically states the same thing.)

Serious suggestion: We add a 'hidden buffers' column to MDI.

Yeah, the columns need to be reordered/redefined. In the table, there are some SDI editors with window splitting, but window splitting is placed under MDI. Look confusing. (Can we call them MDI when they have window splitting?) Minghong 09:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They should only have a 'Yes' in this column if they actually allow the panes of the split window to display different documents at the same time. -- Smjg 11:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shell integration and Column mode editing

I haven't changed the 'shell integration' values for vi or vim, but doesn't the '!' command (run shell command) count as shell integration for vi/vim? I left the value as 'N/A', since I may be misunderstanding shell integration.

Could someone please clarify this?

In addition, wouldn't vim's 'visual mode' count as column mode editing, or am I missing something?

Originally I added "shell integration" for text editors can add items on Windows Explorer's context menu. But now it seems to be not only GUI shell, but also command-line shell... I don't know about vim, but column edit mode refers to the ability to selection vertically [1]. --Minghong 08:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In that case, the column title should be changed. Many people who use operating systems other than MS Windows will understand "shell integration" to mean the ability to start a shell from within the editor or to insert the output of system commands in the buffer. Burschik 15:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tabs

This should be probably multiple file handling, or multiple windows, since tabs aren't found in command line/curses based editors, to be fair. Dysprosia 22:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree
Not agree, as the way to handling multiple document can be very different: 1) open multiple windows; 2) MDI; or 3) tabbed interface. There may be more, but tabbed interface is the most popular. (I don't mean I hate command-line editor thought) --Minghong 09:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can think of
  • multiple windows, similarly to many web browsers
  • MDI
  • split window
  • tabbed interface or similar
Moreover, some editors may support more than one way of displaying/opening multiple documents, or none at all. Some may have a system of switching between documents such that only one is on the screen at a time, but without the convenience of a tabbed interface (e.g. Emacs, which provides this independently of split window and GUI-mode multiple windows). There are also platform differences - an app that uses MDI on Windows may use separate windows in its Mac version, with this being how apps tend to work on Mac OS. And TextPad uses MDI, but has a document selector window that provides the convenience of a tabbed interface. -- Smjg 14:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then, we can split the column into a table, with columns like SDI, MDI. TDI, etc. --Minghong 15:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need a column for SDI? Really it just means it has neither MDI nor TDI. Moreover, the fact that the SDI column follows the same colour scheme as the rest of the columns makes it look as though SDI is a positive feature, which doesn't strike me as right. Personally, I'd be inclined to get rid of the SDI column and move the others back to the basic features table.... -- Smjg 18:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just because you don't think that SDI is the best doesn't mean that other people don't. For example, I think that SDI is vastly superiour to MDI. Since it is a subjective thing, it would not be fair to change it. --Ctachme 21:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I reckon we should change the table to this:

Single document interface Single document window splitting Multiple document interface
Multiple overlappable windows Tabbed document interface Window splitting

My point being:

  • It makes a little more sense to ask whether the editor supports multiple windows than the more specific question of whether it provides access to 'cascade' and 'tile' commands on them.
  • The current table provides no distinction between single-document and multiple-document window splitting. Some editors, even those that support MDI, may support window splitting only to view different parts of the same documents, and not as a way of viewing different documents. TextPad is an example of this. Other programs may provide splitting as a means of viewing multiple documents, and enforce that you're not looking at the same document in both panes. There are probably numerous examples dating to MS-DOS days. Yet others (e.g. Project Builder and probably Emacs) may provide no restriction on whether you use window splitting to look at different documents or parts of one document - these would have a 'Yes' in both columns.

Though I'm not sure whether this is the best place for a "Single document window splitting" column.... -- Smjg 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

I've just implemented this change. However, what does it mean if an editor has both SDI and MDI? -- Smjg 13:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It means they get a "Yes" for both fields. ¦ Reisio 10:24, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
That's like answering the question "What is a square circle?" with "an object in the intersection of the set of squares and the set of circles". It doesn't tell anybody anything. My point is: How is it possible for one editor to fall into both categories? Does it mean that it can be run in either mode, or what? -- Smjg 13:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better explanation of fields

The meaning of most columnts is rather unclear. Also some "features" don't apply to certain editors as they are implemented by other parts of the system but integrate seamlessly into the editor(spell checking in Unix editors is one example, a better example is ftpfs and webfs in Plan 9) Lost Goblin

[edit] 16 references for just Emacs?!

We should better combine it into one reference of the Emacs manual... --Minghong 20:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windowing system integration

What is Windowing system integration? --Hhielscher 09:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? Integration with your windowing system, e.g. right-click at a file > Edit with Notepad. Originally that column was "shell integration". But under different platform, the term "shell" refers to different thing. --Minghong 19:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean the ability of the application itself (or its installer) to add an 'Edit with Notepad' command to certain filetypes? Otherwise it applies to any editor that accepts command line arguments. -- Smjg 8 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
Most people that use GUI don't bother to know the command line arguments of a program. Instead of manually editing registry via regedit or Windows Explorer's option interface, this feature should come out-of-the-box. --minghong 06:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I've found a better name. Take a look. --Minghong 19:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How can adding a registry entry by then installer(which only applies to windows, anyway) be considered a text editor feature? maybe something like Plumber (Plan 9) could be considered "Window system integration", but still I don't think it can be considered a feature of the text editor itself. Lost Goblin
Not really. Most people don't know about registry. Even if they do, it is still nice that the editor itself can handle it (add/remove). Personally I won't use the use without shell integration, e.g. those Java-based text editors like jEdit. P.S. Someone should put jEdit in this comparison. Minghong 09:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EDXOR is Win32

Why was the EDXOR column deleted? EDXOR is a Win32 application, with a Win16 version available as well. And, it's not THAT uncommon. --KelisFan2K5 21:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of it, can you provide references? papers? Lost Goblin
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/edxor.htm <- This is the official EDXOR site. --KelisFan2K5 01:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yea, there are thousands of text editors out there that have a website; why is this one so relevant? Lost Goblin
I think Edxor is worth a mention - it has a lot of features, remains minute, and offers rock solid performance. It is, afaik, written in assembly. --MatthewKarlsen 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small Correction

The table shows that EditPlus does not support regex find/replace. That is false. I use that feature in EditPlus practically every day.

Just be bold and update it. ;-) Minghong 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add an indication for feature available through plugins, scripts?

I just added jEdit to the comparison, but found that for most options were i had to say 'no' there is a plugin available. This is because jEdit is built to provide only core functionality, which can be expanded by plugin, much like Firefox. Adding an indication like Yes* or Plugin (and/or Script, Macro) for options that are available through plugins,scripts or macro's would give a lot more information i guess

Add it as footnote then. For example, see comparison of web browsers. --minghong 11:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nano

Edited to reflect the fact that nano does support newline conversion and all three newline types.

[edit] scriptable?

I'm surprised that in all this, no reference has been made to the text editors scriptability. I'm not even sure if there is a 'rigorous' definition for scriptability (which is why I thought I should discuss this before editing the page).

I know that if i want vim or emacs to do something that it doesn't already do, I can usually script it, either via lisp (with emacs) or a vim file (with vim). are those the only two editors that offer such features? I'm not sure... I do know that I've saved a lot of time through vim scripts, and I feel like a comparison of text editors just isn't complete unless the issue is brought up. any thoughts?

[edit] big table

as there is a Periodic table (huge) set apart from the main article with a warning that it is huge, maybe we could combine all these little tables into one single table (behind a size warning) so people can actually compare them. - Omegatron 21:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the features in groups, as it is now, seems fine. People are likely to stress some groups of features and not care about others, and this format fits that. The periodic table is traditionally shown as a single table, despite how impractical it is, both for viewing and editing. There's no such tradition we need to maintain here. --A D Monroe III 14:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Could we add a column to one that shows the number of plugins for each and the number of languages each supports. (For syntax highlighting, indentation, etc)?

I'm not sure this would be beneficial; is this information especially useful/relevant to this article? And it could be mildly disadvantageous in some ways--it could become competitive. Another issue is that syntax highlighting isn't always for a programming language; it can apply to config files, etc.
For example Vim has 480 syntax definition files and 74 autoindent definition files as of version 7. Additionally, on www.vim.org there are well over a thousand scripts, a significant percentage of which are considered plugins or filetype plugins. So the question is, just how many programming languages does Vim actually support? How many plugins are there really? And almsot as importantly, how difficult would it be to keep it up to date?
I think the article for each editor can--and does in many cases--have more specific information about supported languages, etc. which is probably the more appropriate place for this kind of thing. If not the articles, the official pages for the editors would.... -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plugins

jedit does have spell checking, but it's a plugin. how should we indicate this? - Omegatron 01:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

it is indicated (sort of). it says 'This table lists common basic features supported natively (i.e. without third-party add-ons)'. Plugins don't fall into that category, as far as I know - which is why it's marked as not having a spellchecker. the same is true for vim, and probably most of the other text editors being compared.

[edit] Bracket/Brace matching

Under Programming features, I thought that "Brace matching" seemed more correct than "Bracket matching", that is, the feature to match paired "{" and "}" characters, not "[" and "]". I was going to change it, but I did a little research first. I found that "Brace" is more American-English, and after looking over Bracket, I found that name is used to cover square brackets, braces, and parentheses as a group. Most editors that support matching one of these support the others. So, instead, I merely linked "Bracket matching" to Bracket, so that people could figure out the same thing I did. I thought I'd share my reasoning here, before someone else makes the same mistake I almost did. --A D Monroe III 14:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SciTE

Is there a particular reason why the SciTE editor isn't included in the list? I mean, Notepad2 (another text editor based on Scintilla) is there. It's not as if SciTE isn't popular. So why was it left off?

Because you haven't added it. ¦ Reisio 02:42, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

[edit] Encodings and Unicode conformance

Why has somebody decided that ASCII, UTF-8 and UTF-16 are the only encodings worth listing? Moreover, are there such things as editors that can read a file in a certain encoding but can't save in it?

We also ought to address the issue of Unicode conformance. This isn't the same as merely supporting UTF encodings. It also means preserving all Unicode characters and never misdeclaring an encoding. For example, TextPad is one that isn't Unicode conformant even thouugh it does support UTF-8 and UTF-16. [2] Maybe add a "Unicode conformance" column under Encoding support or somewhere? -- Smjg 11:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line break support

Just as there are different levels of supporting a given encoding, there are different levels of supporting a given line break style. Possibilities:

  • not supporting a certain LBS at all (e.g. Notepad with anything but CR+LF)
  • read-only support - can open files with this LBS, but can't save with it (a few simplistic editors probably do this, including one I've written as a library demo)
  • ability to read, render correctly and preserve on saving, but with newly-typed line breaks coming out only in the native format
  • ability to auto-detect the LBS and save with all line breaks (old and new) in this style
  • letting the user choose which LBS to use

What level of support is required to qualify for a "Yes" in this table? -- Smjg 12:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced File Printing

One section that is often overlooked but would be of great assistance is how well the various editors support printing. Finding thorough support for printing is a difficult task as it is, given that people don't think of printing until they use their editor for a few months before they realise they're knee-deep in code and actually want or need hardcopy.

Poor printing support can be a particularly irritating aspect of half-baked editors. Likewise, editors that have good hardcopy support really shine, and can often make up in printing what they might lack in other (arguably) more superflous features.

A few key features might include:

  • custom header/footer support (page numbering with total; timestamp; path; bitmaps; margins; etc)
  • multiple document printing (current doc; all open docs; arbitrary selection of open and/or closed)
  • command-line printing
  • output to PDF/HTML
  • print preview

Printing is actually quite a diverse but often critical aspect in production environments... worth looking into IMO.

[edit] Missing the point

To me this entire article seems to be missing the point. These are TEXT editors. Who cares if I can upload to FTP or write scripts if it takes weeks or months for me to learn the whole feature set? How about stuff like filesize, loading times, learning curve, popularity and the size of the community supporting it?

Do you mean the filesize of files being edited, or the size of the executable (on all platforms, of both static and dynamically linked binaries)? As for files, these are plain text files, not large documents. Also, popularity and learning curve doesn't make much of a fact, meaning they would simply be biased.
This article answers most of the questions a programmer / web designer could have about a text editor. Believe it or not, they do care if you can write scripts or upload to FTP. --Parasti 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Popularity and learning curve make wonderful facts. It is not biased to suggest that Mac OS X has a weaker community of support than Windows, or that Mac OS X has a much lower learning curve than Linux. These are clear facts. It could and should influence people's decision over what OS to choose. This article is currently aimed at experts and programmers, and is of little use to the majority of users. There is a disgusting amount of tables, so much redundancy. This should be reduced to one table with a SMALL selection of important, universal criteria. Perhaps there could be ONE more table with a small selection of advanced features as well. No more.

216.198.93.154 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hexadecimal mode

I like text editors which have a hexadecimal mode. Could someone add a colomn to a table with this?

[edit] Wikipedian editor

Notepad_Plus_Plus|Notepad++ is by Wikipedian Don Ho, but do not put User: stuff in article Fplay 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VIM: auto completion yes/no?

It states that VIM supports auto completion in the table but it is ambigious because on the VIM page it is said that version 7.0 WILL support auto completion and 7.0 isn't released yet according to the text on the VIM page.

[edit] "Multiple undo/redo" feature

Currently "Multiple undo/redo" is listed under "Programming features" but I think putting it under "Basic features" would be more intuitive. --Tokek 14:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone oppose this relocation? Even my browser's text area supports multiple undo/redo, and my browser & office suite are not really programming related. —Tokek 09:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shareware?

I can't speak for other editors, but suggesting that TextPad is Shareware is not correct. It is Nagware or commercial software. Shareware gives you the option to use teh fully functioning software for the life of the product. Nageware does annoying things until you pay for it. This is the pattern that TextPad has. Should I change it? --Walter Görlitz 04:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the definitions on Wikipedia are inconsistent with my understanding. My understanding of shareware is that it is software that can be obtained for free, but for which one is legally and morally obliged to pay the author ("register") in order to keep it for longer than a certain length of time. So it is commercial software. But even if you don't, the software carries on working regardless, thus distinguishing shareware from time-limited demos of retail software. Many shareware products have, to some extent, reminders to register that pop up from time to time until you do and then enter the licence code they send back to you (or install the registered users' edition that they send to you). As such, nagware just means the variety of shareware in which the user gets interrupted with these reminders. So nagware isn't really a licence, but a way in which the shareware licence is often implemented.
Once upon a time there was a company called Shareware Marketing, later known as Shareware Publishing. Its business was to distribute shareware, freeware and public domain software on floppy disks. It made a point that what I've just said is the definition of shareware, and the following aren't shareware and are beyond its scope:
  • crippleware (considerably cut-down free versions that nobody minds you carrying on using indefinitely)
  • demoware (by which it meant unplayable demos)
  • olderware (old versions of the software are freely distributable)
  • timeware (functional for a limited time - like the aforementioned time-limited demos)
-- Smjg 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ed

Does it make any sense to include ed ? It's about as much a "text editor" as perl -i -ple is. Taw 10:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. It is a text editor, it just predates addressable cursors, so it uses a different strategy for editing. Look at the man page: "ed is a line-oriented text editor."
I have a different question, though. What is "always the same" supposed to mean? On my system, ed's version is "GNU ed version 0.2". Strait 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

This article is currently aimed at experts and programmers, and is of little use to the majority of users. There is a disgusting amount of tables, so much redundancy. This should be reduced to one table with a SMALL selection of important, universal criteria. Perhaps there could be ONE more table with a small selection of advanced features as well. No more. Klondike 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS 9

Please add a column for Mac OS 9. A lot of schools etc. must use "legacy software" due to funding limits, lack of technical expertise, and lack of will. 204.108.72.26 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

204.108.72.26, though I would disagree with this myself, you are encouraged to be bold. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which editors support proportional width font?

I'm a writer, not a programmer making and fixing source codes. So I wan't to view letters in form of beautiful fonts - especially proportional fonts. I tried some of them but they didn't support proportional fonts - vim, pspad, ... And, since I am a Korean, Korean letters seem very strange if I use proportional fonts, more strange than using Words or other complex programs. So would anyone please tell me which of the editors support porportional width font (not fixed width font)?

[edit] Wampler's TVX, VIDE missing

Bruce Wampler's TVX editor, and its successors, are missing here. Is there a reason? ww 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cygwin = Windows support?

This change is in a grey area, I think. Should editors be listed as supporting the Windows operating system if it requires Cygwin? At the very least there should be a footnote. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket PC editor

What about editor for Pocket PC platform? Where should it be put?

Sedimin 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Notepad

User AndreyPopov has been adding this software called "Professional Notepad" to this page with direct link to its website. This is likely advertisement for it's software, using wikipedia to google bombing.

[edit] Graphical shell integration?

What is Graphical Shell integration? As a user of EditPad on Windows and TextWrangler on the Mac, I don't really see a difference there. Yet BBEdit is listed as a Yes and EditPad a No (TextWrangler isn't listed in this table yet). While it's possible this is a difference between BBEdit and TextWrangler, I can't really add TextWrangler until I know what the goal of this column is. -- Steven Fisher 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nano on Cygwin

Currently, Nano is listed as an editor that doesn't run on Windows. However, Cygwin packages for the old version do exist at http://mirror.calvin.edu/cygwin/release/nano/. Since JOE is already marked as an editor that runs on Windows, could anyone please test these packages and update the page if they actually work? Or, is the lack of the Cygwin packge for the latest stable version of Nano a sufficient reason to say "it doesn't run on Windows"? -- Alexander Patrakov 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a natively compiled version of nano for windows, for stable 1.2 and probably coming soon for stable 2.0.0 :) -- Dustin Howett 12:18, 08 November 2006 (EDT)

[edit] IE's modifications

I hate to say it, but I'm tempted to revert IE's modifications of the tables, mostly because the modifications haven't been carried through to be consistent on all the tables, but also because I think they looked better before the modifications. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help to know which of IE's modifications you're talking about, and which version it is that you're claiming looked better. And if we're going to revert anything, we should be careful not to revert any corrections/updates to the information itself. (IE ended up reverting at least one correction - maybe several - so it might take a bit of work.) -- Smjg 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry... I mean the edits starting at 12:03, 2 October 2006 and ending with 06:12, 5 October 2006 (a couple of edits by others are mixed in), plus another at 13:30, 13 October 2006. You're correct that it would have to be handled carefully. The question is whether to carry through some or all of IE's changes to the rest of the tables, or go back to the way they were. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a wonderful resource, but surely some of these tables could be combined somehow, so readers didn't have to scroll up and down constantly to make comparisons.

[edit] Latest Stable Version

Is this really helpful at all? Comparison of version numbers is pretty worthless to an end-user. A latest-version-release-date column would be much more useful (perhaps with the version number in parenthesis), so a reader could see at a glance which editors are still under development. Twiin 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_text_editors_729f.html"