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):

  1. Why is EDT listed as historical? There still are VMS systems in use.
  2. 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)

Several editors in the list could be part of that combined group (Emacs, vim, vile, elvis come to mind). By the way, "XEDIT" is not a graphical editor, and there is perhaps no "system default" editor on VM/CMS Tedickey 12:36, 7 September 2007 (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)
Aside from the one reference in the Bill Joy interview, I've found no additional information for "se". So there is not enough information to make an article Tedickey 12:31, 7 September 2007 (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)

Based on this discussion over at List of Firefox extensions, which suffered from similar problems, the easiest is to remove ALL external links, and only link to editors that have their own articles. I've just done so. hbdragon88 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Crimson Editor.png

Image:Crimson Editor.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Links

I've put back all the links that were removed from someone's previous edit. There are other articles, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figlet which link to this article as a place where users can find certain applications. I think links should only be removed if they are irrelevant or distinctly for some commercial purpose. Also, justification should be given for removing a particular link.

Many of the extensions in the List of Firefox extensions page are also arguably non-commerical as well, but spam is still spam, promotion is still promototion, regardless of whether the product is being sold or not. They figured out that the cleanup was best done by simplifying it to inter-wiki links, links to other Wikipedia articles. Figlet is a great example of how it should be – just a couple of links, to its homepage, no farm of external links. How else do you propose to reduce this spamlinkfarm? hbdragon88 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pixio repeatedly adding the same links

69.27.9.66 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding the same two external links every time they get deleted. I assume the Pixio (talk · contribs) account is the same person. I think this has definitely become link spam at this point. The problem is, I'm not sure what to do about it. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII Art converters

Where did they go? AkvoD3 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Customizable online text editor?

I'm looking for a light online text editor (no WYSIWYG) which I can customize with my own buttons and text to be inserted just like the wiki editbar can do with the Add Button Extension on MediaWiki. ~~Sub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.198.28 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)