Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181362 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-15 09:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-01-24 01:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 09:20 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-01-15 11:42 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 11:28 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-15 13:35 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 18:10 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-15 22:15 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-16 14:29 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-15 13:36 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 18:10 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 23:08 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-17 04:28 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-01-17 10:03 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-17 18:37 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-18 14:33 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-15 09:04 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 18:09 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-15 13:49 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-15 20:03 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-15 16:00 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-16 02:16 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 06:47 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-18 09:09 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-18 15:25 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-18 13:55 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-18 20:15 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-18 21:19 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 20:55 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:29 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:44 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-19 03:50 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-19 03:56 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 09:43 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-19 14:16 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-19 21:27 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2025-01-22 17:57 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-19 08:18 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-20 01:13 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-20 01:15 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-20 14:00 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-21 04:48 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-21 13:28 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-21 08:39 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-21 14:00 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-22 00:09 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-18 16:56 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-18 21:57 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-18 17:40 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:33 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 20:54 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 20:50 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-18 17:36 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:46 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 10:00 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-19 21:16 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-20 03:04 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-20 09:26 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-21 04:47 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-21 07:41 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-22 00:11 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-22 11:48 +0100
Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-22 13:13 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-22 19:54 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-22 22:25 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 04:29 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-23 08:20 -0500
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 21:02 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 22:18 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-01-24 00:25 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 23:35 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-23 23:48 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-24 00:48 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-01-24 00:49 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-24 10:40 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-24 18:14 +0000
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-25 14:22 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-25 14:39 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-25 17:48 +0100
Re: Strange questions (Was: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-23 23:46 +0000
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:05 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-16 11:08 -0500
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 23:03 +0100
Re: How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-24 01:07 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 06:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmfiqs$l143$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181387 |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote: > I've never used regexp for anything. I don't know why I might > use them editing HTML. Doing a word count, for example. <https://gitlab.com/ldo/emacs-prefs/-/blob/master/unhtml-wc.el> > For HTML, or anything, I want an editor designed > for that specifically. Do you really want a different editor for each type of text file you have to deal with?!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmgclb$t14t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181520 |
On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>> I've never used regexp for anything. I don't know why I might
>> use them editing HTML.
>
> Doing a word count, for example.
>
I have a very simple VBScript on my desktop if I need a word
count. I very rarely use it. What I do use with HTML are HTML-
specific editor functions. Though I recently made my own simple
Notepad replacement and added word count/character count to
that.
>> For HTML, or anything, I want an editor designed
>> for that specifically.
>
> Do you really want a different editor for each type of text file you have
> to deal with?!?
>
Yes. Because there are not many. I have the VB6 IDE for VB6.
It provides "intellisense" popup menus for objects, code coloring,
debugging features, a COM object browser, etc. All of that is
specific support for VB6.
I have my own editor for HTML and VBScript. For HTML I have
color coding, quick insertion of tags, quick lists of possible
tag attributes, color coding for script, CSS and HTML separately,
a color picker to get hex codes, a toggle to view the page, which
also provides CSS values for any page element hovered over,
and so on. That's because I actually write HTML. So all of these
features are big time savers and hassle removers.
If you have something like Sublime, Atom, Notepad++, etc, you
get an adjustable UI and you get generic colorcoding that has
little value. And you get line numbers. Those are both useful, but
in a limited way. For example, variables can't be colorcoded in any
language because they don't follow a simple rule. Any other language-
specific features are missing because these editors don't actually
"support" multiple languages. They just offer rudimentary colorcoding
and call that support.
Aside from programming code and plain text, what else is there
for a text editor to handle? Plain text is plain text. For actual plain
text I use Notepad. Once you get beyond code features, it's no
longer plain text. Then you're getting into fonts, pictures, formatting,
and so on, which is a different thing.
Colorcoding colors plain text in a window. The plain text is not
changed. More complex formats, like RTF or DOC, are not plain text.
So plain text just means text, typically ANSI or possibly UTF-8,
which means you're either writing plain text or you're writing some
kind of code.
What these editors
advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly,
Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added.
So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding
a particular language would use such a generic tool.
That kind of support is like a $5 jackknife with 35 blades. Of course
it has a bottle opener, but the bottle opener will probably break the
first time you try to use it.
N++ is really just a thin wrapper around the Scintilla OSS editor
component, which is similar to a RichEdit window. The one good thing
about N++ is that it's very fast with very big files. But anyone who
actually writes any kind of code on any kind of regular basis will
greatly benefit from some kind of IDE -- a tool designed for the job --
not just a text editor with color-coded text to identify keywords
and strings.
It's like anything. If you want to cook you need more than a
saucepan. If you want to do carpenty you need more than a jigsaw.
If you want to repair your car you need more than vicegrip pliers.
You can, of course, get by with a saucepan if all you eat is snack
ramen. But that's not really cooking. That's MIT student dinner.
There seems to be a kind of macho sensibility with a lot of
geeks. "Sure, I can't throw a football or change a tire, but my
editor is black with white characters and it looks really primitive.
It's like heating my hot water over a campfire. Roughing it, man."
I'm not interested in roughing it. I like having a water heater
connected to plumbing so that I can get hot water in my kitchen
sink. There's nothing heroic about heating hot water over a campfile
in a suburban backyard. It's just dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 15:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18qs5lx634.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181527 |
On 2025-01-18 15:09, Newyana2 wrote: > On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote: ... > What these editors > advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly, > Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added. > So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding > a particular language would use such a generic tool. Well, this is not true. Most Linux programmers use vi or emacs. Me, coming from the Dos world prefer a dedicated IDE. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmgtcu$12ejq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181528 |
On 1/18/2025 9:25 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-18 15:09, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> What these editors
>> advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly,
>> Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added.
>> So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding
>> a particular language would use such a generic tool.
>
> Well, this is not true. Most Linux programmers use vi or emacs.
Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
What we were talking about here was HTML. I very much doubt
that the average Linux fan is writing HTML. It's too rich and
colorful for their taste. If they do write HTML to do anything more
than very simple formatting then there would be no benefit in
using Notepad++, Emacs, etc. Even writing very simple HTML there's
little reason to use those editors. They offer only rudimentary
color-coding. If you're *really* writing HTML then you want the
extras.
I think there are two issues here. One is what's the best tool
for the job. Emacs can be OK for limited code writing where a
bit of colorcoding is helpful. But like the other generic editors, it
doesn't offer specialized tools for particular languages. So it's a
swiss army knife for small jobs.
The other issue is irrational, emotional attachment. That's what
makes people have tantrums about reasonable requests like having
a GUI for system settings in the 21st century. Those console window
fanatics are not doing it because it's the best tool. They're doing
it because they came of age (or their grandfather did) at a time
when men were men and men used console, because it's all there
was. Now they think console is more authentic or more macho. It
also serves as a kind of hazing challenge. They don't want computers
to be easy to use because then their skills would have little value.
Those same partially socialized, 60 year old Linux teenagers are
also fanatic about their choice of vi or emacs. ("No, the names are
not capitalized. Fuck you, you Windoze wimps. Capital letters are for
losers. If you can tell me what gnu stands for, and why that's cool,
then we might let you into our clubhouse.") It's like 12-year-olds with
secret decoder rings.
I had a friend back in the early 2000s who was a software project
manager. She did very well. Apparently few people are well suited to
managing anti-social geeks. .Net had recently come out but it was
booming. I asked my friend why .Net was so popular and Java was
not, despite being well established. Without hesitation she answered,
"The tools." That made sense. Microsoft have always bent over
backward to provide very good tools for people of varying levels of
expertise. When Visual Studio came out there was nothing else like
it. .Net, again, was designed to be RAD, usable, and not too hard
to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmh25v$354nh$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #181534 |
In article <vmgtcu$12ejq$1@dont-email.me>, Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: ... > Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to >old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing? >Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code. >It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely >want an IDE if they can have it. You really, really, really need to understand and accept the fundamental principle of argumentation: Namely, that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ItsTough
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 21:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <quet5lx7dd.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181534 |
On 2025-01-18 19:55, Newyana2 wrote: > On 1/18/2025 9:25 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-18 15:09, Newyana2 wrote: >>> On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> What these editors >>> advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly, >>> Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added. >>> So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding >>> a particular language would use such a generic tool. >> >> Well, this is not true. Most Linux programmers use vi or emacs. > > Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to > old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing? > Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code. > It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely > want an IDE if they can have it. I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. The same way that you can not understand doing serious programming with vi, he can not understand me wanting an IDE. Linus Torvalds uses microEmacs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroEMACS ... -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmh4fb$14jae$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181542 |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 23:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jjmt5lxgls.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181547 |
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. > > IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a > general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build > system. A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining the variables (even writing into the variables). Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmhhtl$18s3c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181551 |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. >> >> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a >> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build >> system. > > A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start > the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining > the variables (even writing into the variables). > > Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bt5u5lxh94.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181559 |
On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. >>> >>> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a >>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build >>> system. >> >> A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining >> the variables (even writing into the variables). >> >> Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. > > Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples. That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 03:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l86u5lxq34.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181565 |
On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. >>>> >>>> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a >>>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any >>>> build >>>> system. >>> >>> A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining >>> the variables (even writing into the variables). >>> >>> Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. >> >> Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples. > > That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully featured IDE. Both things are true for many programmers. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 09:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vmie0e$238qi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181566 |
On 19.01.2025 03:56, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. >>>>> >>>>> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to >>>>> have a >>>>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any >>>>> build >>>>> system. >>>> >>>> A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >>>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining >>>> the variables (even writing into the variables). >>>> >>>> Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. >>> >>> Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples. >> >> That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. > > Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But > similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully > featured IDE. Yes. And I think you are right. But we should also sort things a bit. An IDE is something completely different than an editor, of course. It's a thing where typically tons of different features are combined and _strongly interconnected_ to offer an integrated user experience. That's a strength of IDEs, and a weakness. What LDO was implicitly trying to point out was (I think) that it's good to have tools that have a clear task (you don't pay for things that you don't want) and a flexible interface (to make use of _powerful_ components). The tool or IDE designers, for example, could provide a setting where you can choose the (integrated) components. An editing interface, for example, is quite simple and clear, and it would in principle be possible to use any editor (per user setting) also in an IDE; for the interacting features you'd just need a (typically small) "adapter layer". In fact there's quite some well designed tools that allow to use own editors. The advantages are multifold; it's not only that you can use for the individual features specialized components - components that do their respective job much better than any IDE-built-in re-implementation of a feature (or a "clone"). During the decades of my IT practice I used IDEs twice. The problems I had with them was, for one, that I had to use exactly what was supported by the IDE, and use of any powerful tools to efficiently perform tasks that I was used to was impossible or overly cumbersome by clumsy workarounds. For someone who is used to do _arbitrarily complex_ editing functions in an _efficient_ way (with powerful editors) it's really a pain to work with common IDEs. But many people I observed were doing quite _primitive editing_; they don't know better given all the GUI based primitive editors that we typically often find as inferior ad hoc editing (re-)implementation and that folks got used to. With IDEs it's often just a mouse orgy of clicking things together in a mixture of mouse/menu and text input, no editing any more. The efficiency of keyboard(-only) input (e.g. in editors) has to be compensated by other means (like auto-completion). I think that's one reason why the opinions are so strong and why the permeability from one group/type of users/programmers to the other is so difficult. I'd only have wished that folks who speak about the pros and cons [of IDEs and powerful editors] would not be completely ignorant and full of prejudice; ignorance AND prejudice is a very bad (and in Real Life topics even dangerous) combination. > Both things are true for many programmers. Janis PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor but more of an IDE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <miav5lxcii.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181569 |
On 2025-01-19 09:43, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 19.01.2025 03:56, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. >>>>>> >>>>>> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to >>>>>> have a >>>>>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any >>>>>> build >>>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >>>>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining >>>>> the variables (even writing into the variables). >>>>> >>>>> Not in the debugger, but in the IDE. >>>> >>>> Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples. >>> >>> That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. >> >> Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But >> similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully >> featured IDE. > > Yes. And I think you are right. But we should also sort things a bit. > An IDE is something completely different than an editor, of course. > It's a thing where typically tons of different features are combined > and _strongly interconnected_ to offer an integrated user experience. > That's a strength of IDEs, and a weakness. What LDO was implicitly > trying to point out was (I think) that it's good to have tools that > have a clear task (you don't pay for things that you don't want) and > a flexible interface (to make use of _powerful_ components). The tool > or IDE designers, for example, could provide a setting where you can > choose the (integrated) components. An editing interface, for example, > is quite simple and clear, and it would in principle be possible to > use any editor (per user setting) also in an IDE; for the interacting > features you'd just need a (typically small) "adapter layer". In fact > there's quite some well designed tools that allow to use own editors. > The advantages are multifold; it's not only that you can use for the > individual features specialized components - components that do their > respective job much better than any IDE-built-in re-implementation of > a feature (or a "clone"). During the decades of my IT practice I used > IDEs twice. The problems I had with them was, for one, that I had to > use exactly what was supported by the IDE, and use of any powerful > tools to efficiently perform tasks that I was used to was impossible > or overly cumbersome by clumsy workarounds. For someone who is used > to do _arbitrarily complex_ editing functions in an _efficient_ way > (with powerful editors) it's really a pain to work with common IDEs. > But many people I observed were doing quite _primitive editing_; they > don't know better given all the GUI based primitive editors that we > typically often find as inferior ad hoc editing (re-)implementation > and that folks got used to. With IDEs it's often just a mouse orgy of > clicking things together in a mixture of mouse/menu and text input, > no editing any more. The efficiency of keyboard(-only) input (e.g. in > editors) has to be compensated by other means (like auto-completion). > I think that's one reason why the opinions are so strong and why the > permeability from one group/type of users/programmers to the other > is so difficult. I'd only have wished that folks who speak about the > pros and cons [of IDEs and powerful editors] would not be completely > ignorant and full of prejudice; ignorance AND prejudice is a very bad > (and in Real Life topics even dangerous) combination. > >> Both things are true for many programmers. > > Janis > > PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature > set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often > [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor > but more of an IDE. Or an operating system :-D -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmjqni$2r1f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #181569 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:43:57 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote :
> PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature
> set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often
> [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor
> but more of an IDE.
The problem set is (& always was) to edit HTML templates in a single step.
CHANGE HTML FROM:
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>(amazon) foo bar</A><P>
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>(vine) foo bar</A><P>
CHANGE HTML TO:
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=windows+pc>(amazon) windows pc</A><P>
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=windows%20pc>(vine) windows pc</A><P>
Has anyone yet proposed a solution of fewer steps than the following macro?
Step 1: firefox file:///C:/sys/myurls.html" bookmark & press Control+C
Step 2: press @q after the ad hoc desired macro is defined on the fly
qq: Starts recording a macro in the register q.
:'a,'bs/foo/windows/g<Enter>
This replaces "foo" with "windows" in the selected set.
<Enter> simulates pressing the Enter key.
:%'a,'bs/bar/pc/g<Enter>
This replaces all occurrences of "bar" with "pc" in the selected set.
q: Stops recording the macro.
To use the macro:
Open the file in Firefox & press Control+Q to edit in gvim
Enter the macro recording mode by pressing qq
Enter the commands as shown above
Press q to stop recording
To execute the macro, press @q
This will execute the entire macro, replacing "foo" with "windows"
and "bar" with "pc" within the selected area in a single step.
This approach effectively defines the two replacement operations as a
single unit within the macro, making it a one-step action for the user.
Has anyone proposed a simpler one-step solution than that above?
If so, I'd love to see it as I'm seeking real working actual solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-22 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvp2cbh.lhh.apple.universe@freight.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #181584 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.editors.]
# a.c.o.w10 and a.c.s.f are irrelevant for this branch now
with <vmjqni$2r1f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> Marion wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:43:57 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote :
>> PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature
>> set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often
>> [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor
>> but more of an IDE.
> The problem set is (& always was) to edit HTML templates in a single
> step.
>
> CHANGE HTML FROM: <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>(amazon)
> foo bar</A><P> <A
> HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>(vine)
> foo bar</A><P>
>
> CHANGE HTML TO: <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=windows+pc>(amazon)
> windows pc</A><P> <A
> HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=windows%20pc>(vine)
> windows pc</A><P>
*SKIP* [ 16 lines 1 level deep]
> Has anyone proposed a simpler one-step solution than that above? If
> so, I'd love to see it as I'm seeking real working actual solutions.
Please define 'simpler one-step solution'. Preferably in terms others
can comprehend. (Also, "comprehend" and "value" are two distinct
concepts).
:%s,\<foo\>\(.\+\{-1,}\)\<bar\>,windows\1pc,gc
This looks pretty simple to me. But I'm not into IDEs, so there's that.
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmiu1e$285ue$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181566 |
On 1/18/2025 9:56 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But
> similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully
> featured IDE.
>
Lawrence sees only his own use case and extrapolates
from there. And his use case is very unique: Writing Lisp
customizations for an editor that he only uses for editing
one of a dozen basic text code languages.
It's like critiquing Linux. You say, "I don't like that Linux
doesn't have xyz." The Linux fans answer, "You shouldn't
want xyz because it's not in Linux." :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmk7v8$2l8ct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181573 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:18:19 -0500, Newyana2 wrote: > for an editor that he only uses for editing one of a dozen basic text > code languages. How many “text code languages” do you deal with?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmk83h$2l8ct$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181565 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:50:51 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. You want to use a debugger, but you don’t want to start it running? How is that supposed to work?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a0u16lxlnt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #181586 |
On 2025-01-20 02:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:50:51 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger. > > You want to use a debugger, but you don’t want to start it running? How is > that supposed to work? The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the debugging. Not a stand alone debugger. If you are asking that, you have not seen a proper IDE at work. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-21 04:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vmn8vc$3q97e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181601 |
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the > debugging. Not a stand alone debugger. What difference does it make? Why do you want the debugger to run in the same process as the IDE? Do you want it to run in the same process as your program? That’s not how debuggers work on modern systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web