Talk:List of text editors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Programmer's Notepad
I just finished an article on Programmer's Notepad and was wondering if i can change the links on the article to go to my wikipedia article. Note: the article is still being worked on, but it is pretty good in my opionion right now.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlie Da Tuna (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] System Default
Please don't add word processors like WordPad and TextEdit, thanks! --Minghong
- SimpleText is almost as powerful as TextEdit - why shouldn't TextEdit be included? --Hes Nikke
-
- It Should be added to keep in line with the text editor article, and because other so called text editors on this page are similar in function to TextEdit. Further debate will be on the discussions page --24.28.120.97
[edit] Historical
In case I am missing something obvious, can someone explain the following (which I think don't make any sense):
- Why is EDT listed as historical? There still are VMS systems in use.
- Why is sed listed as historical? It might not be used as an editor per se, but it is still in use as a filter. Actually wouldn't sed have always been used as a filter?
I guess I'll wait a few days before moving these around…—Gniw (Wing) 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me; change it. ¦ Reisio 20:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] EDT
True - EDT is still system standart editor for OpenVMS. And not only that: if started with: EDIT /INTERFACE=DECWINDOWS it becomes a GUI as well.
But wait: There is also EDIT/EDT which reduces functionality to a "Line editor". And a look at the help file reveals that the GUI/full-screen editor calls himself "EVE" - "Extensible Versatile Editor". A correction is indeed needed here.
--Krischik T 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's "Graphical"?
In reading the list of editors, I've decided I can't figure out what's meant by a "graphical" editor as compared to a "text-based" editor. Does graphical mean: "An editor that operates within a GUI" while "text-based" means: "An editor that operates an ANSI or other text-only terminal/termulator"? If so, vim is in the wrong list as it will operate within a GUI. tpu may also be mis-classified and I'm sure there are others as well.
Atlant 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, vim has been graphical since the very first release. It is capable of working inside a terminal also. If "text-based" is an optional feature that vim has, then perhaps it belongs there? Overall this page is confusing. JoshuaRodman 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Graphical and Text-Based
Prehaps we need a section on "Graphical and Text-Based" editors - for editors which can do both. Otherwise deciding where the place the editor when only one entry is appropiate becomes tricky. We had a similar problem at wikibooks when sorting the b:Wikibooks:Programming_languages_bookshelf. In the end we decided that we need a section "Multi-paradigmed languages" for those languages which can do more.
And it is the same here. Some of editors can do both Text and GUI. If we put them under "Graphical" (on the basis of maximum feature available) users looking for a text-mode editor will miss them - if we put them text mode users looking for a GUI editor (or dismiss text editor as boring and old fashioned) will miss them.
Neither way is perfect so a 3rd group might be needed.
--Krischik T 08:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vi vs. vim vs. gvim
I just moved vim up as I believe that "Graphical" takes preference over "Text-Based" (as it does for emacs) and "System default" take preference over "Free software". vim has replaced vi as system default editor on Linux systems:
>la /bin/* | grep vim lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /bin/vi -> vim* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1.1M 2004-10-05 02:40 /bin/vim* >la /usr/bin/* | grep vim lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/edit -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/ex -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/rview -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/rvim -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vi -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/view -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vim -> /bin/vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vimdiff -> vim*
That's SuSE Linux 9.3.
Of corse: gvim can either be installed as a simple symlink- just like the others - or as seperate application. Most Linux system install them seperatly to preserve space in /bin (where the system default editor needs to be installed just in case /etc/fstab gets corupted and needs editing):
/opt/gnat Linux krischikm@wceh00a3 Fri Jan 20 09:12:39 standart
>la /usr/X11R6/bin/*vim*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/egvim -> gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/evim -> gvim* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2.3M 2004-10-05 02:44 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvimdiff -> gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/rgvim -> gvim*
It's not just the GUI which doubles the size, there is also python and perl support active in gvim.
--Krischik T 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
I've removed all external links per WP:NOT. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- So do all editors to be included need their own wikipedia pages before they can go here?
- I'd recommend the freeware NotGNU emacs for inclusion, but I'm not sure of the protocol.
- (disclaimer, I'm the webmaster for it, though not the developer) jwilkinson 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial editors
I have removed the list of commercial editors, as Wikipedia is not a directory of software and especially of commercial products. If this is contested, give your reasons here. Alcalazar 11:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. It seems rather arbitrary to exclude these editors from an article titled "List of text editors" solely based on the fact that the software is for sale. There is current as well as historical value in information on these editors, some of which many engineers have spent the majority of their working lives using. Would you suggest that we remove the Boeing 747 from List of aircraft by category because you can't get it for free? Dmw 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that by that argument ("Wikipedia is not a directory of software") this article really shouldn't exist at all, but if it does it should definitely include commercial editors--it defeats the purpose of the article to exclude them. Personally I find Comparison of text editors to be a far more useful article, and I've occasionally wondered if these two articles should be merged somehow, though I haven't been able to come up with good enough reasons to actually propose it. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EvolvEd
I found a new text editor, but have no idea what category it should go in. This whole page is very confusing. Anyway, it's called evolvEd, and you can find it here: evolvEd. --Tyranic Moron 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] se/sed?
- se — An early screen-based editor for Unix, based on ed.
Shouldn't this be sed instead of se? -- 84.44.153.29 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I suppose, I was wrong. -- 84.44.154.183 11:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What should the requirements be?
One discussion I'm not seeing here is over the question of, "What are the requirements for an editor to be included here?" Should any text editor be included here? Say, for example, basically any interactive console for any language that has file read/write capability could be used as a text editor. Should that be removed? Should that be included?
My thoughts are that if a program's primary purpose is to edit and/or modify a text file, then it should be included here. There should be perhaps 2 major sections: currently being developed (should have a web page, has been updated in the last X years, etc.) and not currently being developed (may or may not have a web page, hasn't updated in the last X years). Each entry should, more or less, include a link to an editor's wikipedia entry (if any), maybe the editor/style it is derived from (Emacs-like, Vim-like, Cua-like, etc.), a link to the editor's home page (if any), a link to screenshots (if any), distribution terms (open, free(ware), shareware, nagware, commercial), and perhaps platform availability (Windows, OSX, Linux, Solaris, BSD, X11, (Posix), etc.).
Other features, like whether the editor allows collaborative editing, has a tty or GUI mode, etc., should be included on a related comparison page, if any, and a note should be included in the listing for this page.
As for the "comparisons" page. My thoughts there are that it should be removed unless it can gain some interactivity. The current page is too large to be useful, and doesn't include a large number of popular or interesting (either historically or relevant today) editors. The requirement for that page should be that the editor be included on this page, and have an applicable web page for more information or download (this keeps the comparisons to the realm of editors that could be relevant to readers).
Wikiwalk 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
