Talk:XEDIT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge

IMO we can merge The Hessling Editor with XEDIT. I'm a user of XEDIT since about 1982, later KEDIT on DOS and OS/2 until today. On Linux I'd install THE immediately after Regina as soon as possible. -- Omniplex 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If they're two separate editors--even if one is a clone of the other--they should probably remain as separate articles because even if it hasn't happened already they'll likely to start to have diverging features. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 04:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

THE and KEDIT are both meant to be as near to XEDIT as possible, adding a few minor differences. The original XEDIT 1981 had of course no mouse support, just an example ;-) KEDIT is more or less frozen, no further development. For THE I'd guess it's similar (you could ask Mark Hessling, from time to time he posts in comp.lang.rexx). They are "finished" products in a certain sense, you can add anything you need with REXX macros. And there won't be any radical new "curses" (THE uses Mark's port of curses). -- Omniplex 04:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support merging, but I think that we should move the merged page to "XEDIT and similar editors" or maybe "Eastern Orthodox Editors". There are one or two others that could also be included in the article. This is such a niche area though that surely it only deserves one article in WP. As for the drift apart, I think that fear is misplaced. XEDIT was functionally stabilized long ago. Thruston 10:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Against.There is a critical difference between XEDIT and all the clones (that I know of). XEDIT was intended for 3270 family terminals and IBM System/370 family computers, and successors. These terminals did not communicate with the computer after every keystroke; only when Enter, a function key, or a few other keys were pushed did a message get sent to the computer. This drove many design choices in XEDIT and another 3270 oriented editor, ISPF. I wonder if it is wise to merge articles about editors that operate on fundamentally different hardware. In any case, I think a better description of the editor and an explaination of the relationship between the editor human factors and the hardware would improve the article. Also, an explaination of the tendency of the IBM mainframe operating systems to explicitly keep track of lines, rather than character streams, and the emphasis of the editor on lines and line numbers, would also improve the article. --Gerry Ashton 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XEDIT/Xedit

Are the pages for XEDIT and Xedit referring to same proram? If so, the later can be made a link to the former -- Anupam Srivastava 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. The program is correctly known as "XEDIT", not "Xedit". RossPatterson 01:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, links copied, page redirected. -- Omniplex 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XEDIT/KEDIT

The opening of this article, after barraging the user with a bundle of platform names and jargon, suddenly throws in references to KEDIT without warning or explanation. I can't claim to have played with either editor, but I'd really like to suggest that someone good with words and familiar with the editors clean things up so that a newcomer can understand how a KEDIT relates to an XEDIT. Do the two really belong in the same article in the first place? I know I was lost when I saw "XEDIT" listed under "K" in the category Windows text editors. Weichbrodt 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have disentangle the part of the article that is actually about XEDIT from the part about XEDIT adaptations for PC or UNIX. --Gerry Ashton 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)