Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181362 > unrolled thread

How to edit HTML source file on Windows in one step (not two)?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#181627

On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 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.

It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is 
what defines a complete and powerful IDE, having these functionalities 
inside, not on an external program (which also exists). This is 
technology invented in the 90's or perhaps earlier by Borland.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181631

On 1/21/2025 7:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is 
> what defines a complete and powerful IDE, having these functionalities 
> inside, not on an external program (which also exists). This is 
> technology invented in the 90's or perhaps earlier by Borland.
> 
   Do you realize that this bickering will continue as long as
you take part?

   Lawrence reminds me of a couple of people
who used to frequent the photo editing newsgroup. They
probably still do. One was a know-it-all who would argue that
the sky is not blue. The other was a reasonable person but
couldn't stop when the bickering started. They'd sometimes
go on over 100 posts, with variations on "Is not!" and "Is so!"

    Know-it-alls are highly skilled at twisting details and context
in order to assemble unassailable logic:

"Water is wet."
"Is not. Since when you idiot? Have you ever touched an ice cube with 
cold hands?"
"When it's not frozen, it's wet."
"Why would you want to get wet?"

   There's an obsession with winning and a notable lack of
interest in facts or relevance; an obscene paucity of curiosity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181633

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is 
> what defines a complete and powerful IDE, having these functionalities 
> inside, not on an external program (which also exists). This is 
> technology invented in the 90's or perhaps earlier by Borland.

  Yes, when you described debugging in the IDE, I remembered how it was
in Borland's Turbo C.

  Not that I did that much with it. Most of my C programming was on
relatively 'dumb' Unix/UNIX environments, but I managed anyway. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181645

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:28:12 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is 
> what defines a complete and powerful IDE ...

No, that is just how it was done back in the days when you thought single-
tasking MS-DOS was the bee’s knees. Your IDEs had to provide all this 
functionality built-in because there was no way to call it externally.

That’s not how we do things on *real* computers. We run the debugger in a 
separate process so that program crash cannot kill the debugger. The 
debugger is just another off-the-shelf component, that can be used from 
any editor/IDE, so you can mix and match your preferred components to I 
your own DE: Integrate your own Development Environment, just the way you 
like it. You don’t have to take or leave what some single vendor provides.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181549

On 1/18/2025 3:19 PM, Carlos E.R. 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

   That could be. Are you still arguing that a simple, non-specialzed
editor is better than an IDE... because Linus Torvalds uses one?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181550

In article <vmh80l$15qbu$2@dont-email.me>,
Newyana2  <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>On 1/18/2025 3:19 PM, Carlos E.R. 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>
>   That could be. Are you still arguing that a simple, non-specialzed
>editor is better than an IDE... because Linus Torvalds uses one?

The thing you need to do is to realize and accept that when you find
yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

-- 
I shot a man on Fifth Aveneue, just to see him die.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181554

On 1/18/2025 4:57 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> The thing you need to do is to realize and accept that when you find
> yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
> 

    I suppose you think it's clever to hide in the corner and throw
stones. It's not.

    If you're going to take the trouble to post then
you should think through something useful to say. What you're doing
is what the kids like to call "ad hominem attacks", which basically
means telling people that their grandmother wears army boots,
without offering any insight or even criticism. Just a put-down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181553

On 2025-01-18 22:56, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 1/18/2025 3:19 PM, Carlos E.R. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
>    That could be. Are you still arguing that a simple, non-specialzed
> editor is better than an IDE... because Linus Torvalds uses one?

I am telling you that there are serious professionals programmers that 
work without an IDE. Just accept it. I'm not saying that you change your 
programming methodology, just accept that there are other very capable 
people that do differently.

"Better" varies per person.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181546

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:55:07 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

> Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.

db_user=
db_passwd=
db_host=
for ((;;)); do
    if [ "${1:0:2}" != "--" ]; then
        break
    fi
    opt="${1:2:${#1}}"
    shift
    val="${opt#*=}"
    opt="${opt%%=*}"
    if [ "$opt" = "user" ]; then
        db_user="$val"
    elif [ "$opt" = "password" ]; then
        db_passwd="$val"
    elif [ "$opt" = "host" ]; then
        db_host="$val"
    else
        echo "bad option $opt" 1>&2
        exit 3
    fi
done
if [ $# != 1 ]; then
    echo $'Usage:\n\t'"$0"$' [--user=user] [--password=passwd] <dbname>\n' 1>&2
    exit 3
fi
dbname="$1"

basecmd="mysql"
if [ "$db_user" != "" ]; then
    basecmd="$basecmd -u $db_user"
fi
if [ "$db_passwd" != "" ]; then
    basecmd="$basecmd -p$db_passwd"
fi
if [ "$db_host" != "" ]; then
    basecmd="$basecmd -h $db_host"
fi
echo "Tables for $dbname:"
for table in $($basecmd -B -e "show tables from $dbname" | tail -n+2); do
    echo
    echo "Fields for $table:"
    $basecmd $dbname -e "show columns from $table"
done

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181545

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:09:28 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

> 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.

Is it as simple as the ELisp script I referenced? Remember, that 
integrates into the editor, so it is just a few keystrokes away.

>> Do you really want a different editor for each type of text file you
>> have to deal with?!?
>> 
> Yes. Because there are not many.

Each programming language has its own syntax rules. Then you have other 
formats like Markdown, groff, HTML (as mentioned), XML, JSON, .ini files 
commonly used for config purposes ... I suspect I probably have to deal 
with about a dozen different formats, at least on an occasional basis.

I don’t want to have to run a dozen different editors for that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181552

On 1/18/2025 3:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Is it as simple as the ELisp script I referenced? Remember, that
> integrates into the editor, so it is just a few keystrokes away.
> 

   That's interesting. So in a way you're programming the editor
yourself, to whatever extent you find useful. I can see how that
would be appealing for a particular usage.

   I don't think we're really disagreeing. We're talking about
different things. You have a very specialized usage, you're
capable of adapting your editor for personal optimization. Those
optimizations are more useful to you than specialized functionality.
However, your usage is extremely rare. Very few people are
coding in a dozen languages and very few are capable, or even
interested in, customizing an editor to the point of writing a lot
of its functionality.

   I was talking about using a generic vs specialized editor
for a particular language. (In this case HTML.) The general
editors provide no specialized functions other than rudimentary
colorcoding and line numbers. Adding something like word count
is a plain text function.

   In my HTML editor, for example, I can browse for a file and
then auto-insert an IMG tag without having to check the pixel
dimensions. I can display an image, click any
point, and get the hex code for that point, which can be very
useful for background and outline coloring. I can display a colorpicker
and get the hex code for a selected color. I can toggle to display
the webpage, hover over any point, and find the class/ID for
that element. I can quickly see a list of possible attributes for
an HTML tag.... Those are all things that make the job easier.

   That might not be of much use to you. Maybe you couldn't care
less. But if you did a lot of HTML work, those functions would be
big hassle-savers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181560

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:36:49 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:

> That's interesting. So in a way you're programming the editor
> yourself, to whatever extent you find useful. I can see how that
> would be appealing for a particular usage.

Or indeed, for all usages. A programmable machine is a universal machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181570

On 19.01.2025 01:46, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:36:49 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
> 
>> That's interesting. So in a way you're programming the editor
>> yourself, to whatever extent you find useful. I can see how that
>> would be appealing for a particular usage.
> 
> Or indeed, for all usages. A programmable machine is a universal machine.

Given all the dreadful imaginations of the other poster about editors
we should emphasize that you don't need specialized programming to do
most of the complex editing functions. Personally I rarely program my
editor (Vim). But, of course, the scripting interface certainly also
makes it possible to support arbitrarily complex features. Or use just
some existing plug-in to support any special use case or higher level
functions. Or make use of other simple editor mechanisms (like macros)
to support own preferences or specific operations beyond the existing
(already powerful) basic editing features.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181583

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:00:53 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote :


> all the dreadful imaginations of the other poster about editors
> we should emphasize that you don't need specialized programming to do
> most of the complex editing functions. Personally I rarely program my
> editor (Vim). But, of course, the scripting interface certainly also
> makes it possible to support arbitrarily complex features. Or use just
> some existing plug-in to support any special use case or higher level
> functions. Or make use of other simple editor mechanisms (like macros)
> to support own preferences or specific operations beyond the existing
> (already powerful) basic editing features.

+1 Agree.

We have a solution, which, if someone has a BETTER solution, I'm all ears.
The problem set is (& always was) to edit HTML templates in a single step. 

Herbert Kleebauer proposed a solution, which nobody has been able to beat.
That working solution (that nobody yet can beat), has two components.

That 1st component brings up the users' editor of choice in one step.
The 2nd component is to make those edits, where this is the HTML template:

 <HR>
 <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>
 <HR>

Has anyone yet proposed a solution of fewer steps than the following?
STEP 1. While viewing the "firefox file:///C:/sys/myurls.html" bookmark,
        simply press "Control+U" to bring it up in your favorite editor
STEP 2. In that favorite editor, in as few steps as possible, change
        CHANGE FROM: foo bar
        CHANGE TO: laptop computer                                                                                                                                  

What has anyone proposed that is SIMPLER (fewer steps) than this macro?
        :'a,'bs/foo/laptop/g | 'a,'bs/bar/computer/g
        
That translates to from a to b, replace all instance of foo with laptop;
and do the same for bar by replacing it with computer (in a single macro).

What editor has anyone yet proposed which can do that in fewer steps?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181587

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:00:53 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

> ... you don't need specialized programming to do most
> of the complex editing functions.

I wonder, is it so many decades of conditioning by marketing departments 
that constrains people to think in terms of market segments? So they 
automatically think “this product is for marketing segment A, but I’m in 
marketing segment B, so I don’t need it”?

In Emacs, most of the editor itself is written using the same programming 
language you use for your own extensions. There is no “mode” or barrier or 
wall (or extra-cost “addon”) to separate the situation of using the 
existing code from that of creating and running your own. So switching 
from one to the other is seamless: your code hooks into the same 
invocation system, the same extensible help system, the same UI -- 
everything works the same for your code as for the built-in code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181594

On 20.01.2025 04:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:00:53 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> 
>> ... you don't need specialized programming to do most
>> of the complex editing functions.
> 
> I wonder, is it so many decades of conditioning by marketing departments 
> that constrains people to think in terms of market segments? So they 
> automatically think “this product is for marketing segment A, but I’m in 
> marketing segment B, so I don’t need it”?
> 
> In Emacs, most of the editor itself is written using the same programming 
> language you use for your own extensions. [...]

I read: "GNU Emacs is written in C and provides Emacs Lisp, also
implemented in C, as an extension language."

Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.

In decades of using editors I could avoid to extend the powerful
basic editor functions by own editor-scripting. I think it's good
if the used editor is so powerful that you can avoid scripting;
makes it usable in any environment as it comes.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181622

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

> Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
> specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.

ELisp is not a “functional programming” language. And like it or not, Lisp 
has always been a cutting-edge language, with features not commonly found 
in more conventional languages.

Consider that one of the Vim family, Neovim, I think it is, has decided 
that the traditional Vim extension language isn’t good enough, so it has 
adopted Lua as an extension language. At least it’s in the right 
direction, but it still doesn’t have the power of Emacs.

Where is there an editor to compare with Emacs, with an extension language 
that is not Lisp, yet is equally powerful? There isn’t one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181624

On 21.01.2025 05:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> 
>> Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
>> specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.
> 
> ELisp is not a “functional programming” language. And like it or not, Lisp 
> has always been a cutting-edge language, with features not commonly found 
> in more conventional languages.

Oh, I thought it would have something to do with Lisp because of the
chosen name. - And Wikipedia seems to support that; "Emacs Lisp is a
Lisp dialect made for Emacs."

(For discussion of programming languages; that's not the appropriate
newsgroups. I spare me a comment.)

> 
> Consider that one of the Vim family, Neovim, I think it is, has decided 
> that the traditional Vim extension language isn’t good enough, so it has 
> adopted Lua as an extension language. At least it’s in the right 
> direction, but it still doesn’t have the power of Emacs.

I think it's better to use an existing script language in case any
tool wants to support scripting than to invent an own language.

Concerning Vim you can read it supports: "scripting languages (both
native and through alternative scripting interpreters such as Perl,
Python, Ruby, Tcl, etc.) including support for plugins". - Sounds
extremely flexible and powerful to me. And obviously also provides
choices for folks that don't like Elisp (or Lisp, or any scripting
language that is unknown to them).

But I anyway never felt the need to do any scripting [with script
languages] in Vim; it has (already natively) an extremely powerful
concept and editing feature set.

> 
> Where is there an editor to compare with Emacs, with an extension language 
> that is not Lisp, yet is equally powerful? There isn’t one.

If the quote above is correct then Vim would clearly be such a
candidate. (It sounds even much better than what Emacs does with
its own implemented language dialect. - Not that I would care.)

(And in Vim you might not need Scripting that often as in Emacs?)[*]

I'm anyway not interested in starting or continuing the Editor War.
(And, to be honest, even less so with any "religious" fanatics that
we often find in Usenet.)[**]

Janis

[*] I recall someone in Usenet - it might even have been you? - showed
some Lisp-like code (15-20 lines, or so) for Emacs to support some new
function in Emacs. Vim supported that already natively.

[**] Personally I acknowledge that Emacs is a powerful editor; and it
even offers much more beyond editing. Concerning the _editing power_
I'd never trade Vim for Emacs, though. YMMV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181646

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 07:41:49 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

> On 21.01.2025 05:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> 
>>> Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
>>> specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.
>> 
>> ELisp is not a “functional programming” language. And like it or not,
>> Lisp has always been a cutting-edge language, with features not
>> commonly found in more conventional languages.
> 
> Oh, I thought it would have something to do with Lisp ...

Of course it does.

> Concerning Vim you can read it supports: "scripting languages (both
> native and through alternative scripting interpreters such as Perl,
> Python, Ruby, Tcl, etc.) including support for plugins". - Sounds
> extremely flexible and powerful to me.

Which of those languages can be used to write “plugins”? My feeling is, 
none of them.

> [*] I recall someone in Usenet - it might even have been you? - showed
> some Lisp-like code (15-20 lines, or so) for Emacs to support some new
> function in Emacs. Vim supported that already natively.

Was it the function to do word counts in HTML files? Where does Vim 
support that natively?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181651

On 22.01.2025 01:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 07:41:49 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 21.01.2025 05:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> 
>> Concerning Vim you can read it supports: "scripting languages (both
>> native and through alternative scripting interpreters such as Perl,
>> Python, Ruby, Tcl, etc.) including support for plugins". - Sounds
>> extremely flexible and powerful to me.
> 
> Which of those languages can be used to write “plugins”? My feeling is, 
> none of them.

Frankly, I can't tell since, as I said, it was never necessary (for me)
to use plugins and even less to write plugins. (I was merely quoting. -
If you have, beyond your feeling, concrete evidence that the quote from
Wikipedia is wrong/misinformation your input is certainly appreciated.)

> 
>> [*] I recall someone in Usenet - it might even have been you? - showed
>> some Lisp-like code (15-20 lines, or so) for Emacs to support some new
>> function in Emacs. Vim supported that already natively.
> 
> Was it the function to do word counts in HTML files?

As you may derive from my formulation above, I don't remember whether
it was you and what specifically it was about. (I don't think, though,
that it was about a HTML-word count.) - I don't think it's important
who or what specifically it was; sometimes people feel the need to post
own solutions for specific features/requirements. (Not only concerning
editors, BTW; that's also a phenomenon with other tools.)

The point was that you have a powerful and flexible base. With that
you have either things already available or can simply integrate them.

> Where does Vim support that natively?

This is a strange question from someone who was elsethread advocating
an open, flexible editor interface (as Emacs or Vim have).

For a concrete way it depends on what you define a "word" in HTML. (If
you just mean what Unixes 'wc -w' provides then you could just simply
call the tool from within the editor on the actual text (with '!G', as
could already be done with classic Vi) or with Vim you can interrogate
that information with 'g^g' ("g Ctrl-G") that provides something like,
say,  "Col 1 of 61; Line 1 of 835; Word 1 of 4956; Byte 1 of 49324".
Concerning the question what a "HTML-word" is there's also features in
Vim to _define_ what a "word" actually is considered to be.)

But, as already indicated, I'm not inclined to contribute to the Editor
War. You will certainly find things in Emacs - especially things beyond
editing - that some or even all other editors don't [natively] support.
So what?

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web