back in the day we could either edit in vi on the PDP 11, or use wordstar on DOS and upload the code for compilations. I don't think anyone worked in vi from choice except for minor mods. I cant remember how we uploaded the code either - there was certainly no TCP/IP - must have been over serial.
Must I?
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell
Sure it does, you just have to use the right markup.
There's plenty of books written in LaTeX it's not a bad option, better than troff in many ways - but both were designed for the job of producing books and they're pretty good at it. These day's I'd be more inclined to use docbook and forget all about the layout until print time.
-- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
I've used qtCreator for C, C++ and Python (before I started using PyCharm), its editor works pretty well and you can set it up to build plain makefile or cmake projects as well as qt stuff.
---druck
Dana Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:09:02 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot napis'o:
That is exactly my point. Final layout is just the final step after structuring your tekst. And LaTeX does that really nice. Just few corrections and that's it.
One of the guys I worked with wrote an emacs like editor for DEC, when we moved from VMS to ultrix/sparcs he used vi, even after he got a unix port of his editor.
The funny thing coding full time with vi is that my fingers didn't forget it even after decades of not using it. I found it hard to verbalise the keys I was using but my fingers just seemed to know.
Latex is cool, If you have a better editor I'm all ears.
That's fine and dandy when you have the option of running a GUI app on the box with the code that needs editing - this tends to be problematic when the box in question is on another continent (or even just in another building), at which point being good with a terminal based editor is helpful.
-- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
I vastly preferred WordPerfect - provided you had a keyboard with function keys to the left and control next to A - then that apparent mess turns into a really efficient layout that was surprisingly easy to remember.
-- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
It's much more than that. It is a fully-fledged IDE for source code. You get syntax-highlighting, you can start a compiler, assembler and linker, or call up the makefile. Then you can start the program, or call it up in a debbuger. All very customizable. The rules for most programming languages are already built in, and if you use a new one you can write them yourself.
-- aen
Couldn't agree more with your 'same editor everywhere' approach. I first saw microemacs when it was the standard editor on OS9/68000, liked it and found the source, which I've recompiled on several Unices, Windows PCs (when I still used them) and, of course, Linux (both Fedora and Raspbian).
-- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
The thing I really liked about Word for DOS was stuff like one of the function keys, F4 IIRC, which did more each time you hit it: 1st click selected the whole word, 2nd click selected the whole sentence and 3rd click selected the whole paragraph. Plus, it didn't have or need the 'reveal codes' mode that everybody needed use to disentangle a WordPerfect document sooner or later. Of course, I'm talking about the original WP for DOS with its famous almost blank initial screen which reduced more than one secretary to tears, not the Windows version.
-- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
I've never understood the big advantage of this sort of IDE over doing each of those things (edit, compile, run/test) in separate terminal windows. I have a syntax highlighting editor that runs in a terminal.
Again the *huge* advantage of running everything in terminal windows running a (bash) shell is that one is using the same working environment for everything, whether your compiling and testing code, doing some housekeeping, checking E-Mails or whatever.
I use one editor everywhere and terminal windows running bash everywhere.
-- Chris Green
The best unix IDE is urxvt with tmux.
-- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
yup. Latex is ok for tech stuff. But you can use page layout stuff like scribus ...I am writing a book in Libre office, because it has just enough features to do the job I want to do and its free, and I never used Latex enough to be handy with it, and Scribus is overkill
I use Scribus for adverts and brochures and the like where page presentation is important. Geany for code. Lire office for not too technical docs and books and pluma for unstructured plain text. For editing config files on non GUI clients vi or joe.
*shrug* i ain't got religion, just a selection of imperfect tools-- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
A huge loss, since it was impossible to disentangle Word documents *at all* without simply deleting and staring over...
-- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.
Somebody asked what I'm looking for. That's a good question. Currently I do what you say - edit most things in a terminal window, because that environment is universal whether I'm editing locally or remotely (I probably do >70% of my editing remotely, including most mail and Usenet).
So I suppose what I'm after is something that makes a compelling reason for editing locally, where I will put up with the hassles of bringing the files to me because it gives me something extra.
I'm not terribly bothered by being able to compile stuff from an editor - on a terminal the shell is always the 'quit' keystroke away, and I can flip back to the editor with up-arrow and Enter. So that's a non-problem as far as I'm concerned. It is nice to be able to compile when looking at the code, but two terminal windows give me that.
One good reason for a GUI editor is mouse-based selection. I much prefer the keyboard, but sometimes you're moving big chunks of text around (say refactoring code or a document) and it's easier to point and drag than lots of cursor manipulation (start-marker, end-marker, cut, move, paste, etc) Almost very GUI editor does that (with the exception of gvim, which is a bit weird) so it's not really a discriminating factor.
One thing I do appreciate though is being able to operate everything smoothly from the keyboard when I don't need the mouse. One wordprocessor required me to use the menu shortcuts (something like Alt-E-F-S for strikeout) and that was awkward. Yes there was a button on the toolbar, but switching keyboard-mouse-keyboard is time consuming.
Syntax highlighting is also a given, but with a wide set of rules. I opened a device tree .dts file in geany yesterday and was surprised it didn't highlight. It did highlight C code.
Another desirable feature would be code navigation - click on a function call to go to its definition, bring up the API documentation in some kind of popup, grep-style search where you get a list of results and can click on a result to go to that file.
Similarly code folding - being able to collapse functions (or sections in your Latex or whatever) so it's easier to skip over those you aren't working on. Saves scrollbar time.
Another useful feature is debugger integration - not just running gdb alongside, but being able to set breakpoints with clicks on source lines, when you get to the breakpoints being able to see the tree of variables in a window that you can navigate by mouse, rather than typing out search patterns at a gdb prompt.
Basically this sounds something a bit more IDE like but not tied to a particular language/toolchain - often IDEs are strongly tied to particular environments (Java, embedded, etc) and it feels awkward if you're using them for something else, so you end up flitting between multiple IDEs. I suppose I'm looking for an editor with IDE features rather than an IDE with editor features.
Answers on a postcard...
Theo
:-)
Even my little headless pi downstairs in the dining room hasn't got any GUI...
But it has got NFS, so I can edit its files on this GUI machine. Most of them anyway.
I remember the thrill I got sitting in a machine room in the Channel islands, mounting an SMB share on my windows laptop and editing a report over a 2MBps link to HQ in east Anglia...
Editing files on my remote servers using a GUI and NFS* is faster than it used to be over coaxial ethernet in the same room.
*I have a fixed IP address. the firewalls at each end know what to do. If someone in the middle really wants my source code that bad, they can have it. If I want access globally I use sshfs-- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.
that is spurious. I remeber writing in Wordstar, on a PC, uploading to a PDP 11, using a terminal emulator on the PC to compile and VI to edit te makefile before downloading the code into an in circuit emulators pretending to be a 6809 microprocessor ...driving an oscilloscope
Never mind different windows I was working on 4 totally different machines...
I find the same with et Pi.
Except final compilations has to be on it because I cant be bothered to cross compile and get that lot set up
-- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
You can often reduce their size though, by copying everything in the Word doc except the final paragraph marker, then pasting that into a new empty doc.
-- Tim
True. But every book that needs your attention on every page... is not a book I would like to read. :) LaTeX forces me to structure the whole thing. To lay it out and see the content. If I need figures or tables, I reference these and let LaTeX decide where to put them to make the text flow. I rarely have to intervene. And the text flows. Well... Knuth did it right with TeX. And huge amounts of packages did the rest.
And it does what you tell it to do. No "AI" in it. I hate "AI" in text processors. :)
True. I prefere LibreOffice over M$. LibreOffice was done with nonEnglish users in mind. And it works great!
In case of posters and things like that I use Inkscape.
Yeah. That's it. Every tools has a purpose. You can write .svg in vim, but it's easier to do that visually in Inkscape. :) But I do write .html in vim. :) It's again all about the document structure.
Does inkscape do multipage PDFs? Every time I've used it it hasnt worked for me and I never bothered to delve into it enough. I have Corel Draw on an XP virtual machine if I need a drawing program
Scribus does a better job of formatting
I write it in Geany.
Got used to the highlighting
And function collapse..and..and..just got used to it is all.
My code is mainly PHP/HTML/CSS/Javascript or C and that combo sits well on Geany.
Since I don't really do it professionally the learning curve to move to an unfamiliar editor, is significant.
-- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.