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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #13216 > unrolled thread

Editor recommendation

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Editor recommendation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-08-28 16:18 -0400
    Re: Editor recommendation David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-08-28 22:46 +0200
      Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-08-28 22:10 +0000
        Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-29 09:23 -0700
          Re: Editor recommendation Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-08-29 17:15 +0000
            Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-29 10:38 -0700
              Re: Editor recommendation Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-08-29 17:49 +0000
                Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-29 12:19 -0700
            Re: Editor recommendation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-08-29 12:16 -0700
          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 11:32 -0700
            Re: Editor recommendation Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-08-29 12:15 -0700
            Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-29 14:04 -0700
              Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 14:25 -0700
                Re: Editor recommendation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-29 17:05 -0500
                  Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 16:32 -0700
                Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-29 15:44 -0700
                  Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 18:02 -0700
                    Re: Editor recommendation Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2013-08-30 13:22 +0200
                      Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-30 15:00 -0700
                        Re: Editor recommendation Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2013-08-31 02:17 +0200
                        Re: Editor recommendation Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2013-08-31 11:36 +0200
            Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-30 20:30 -0400
              Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-31 00:50 -0700
                Re: Editor recommendation Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2013-08-31 11:54 +0200
                  Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-31 10:17 -0400
                  Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-31 10:20 -0400
          Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-08-30 13:29 +0000
            Re: Editor recommendation dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-08-30 15:04 -0700
      Re: Editor recommendation George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-08-30 13:05 -0400
        Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-08-30 22:55 +0000
    Re: Editor recommendation Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-08-28 21:22 -0500
      Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-28 19:54 -0700
        Re: Editor recommendation Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-08-28 22:28 -0500
          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-28 22:38 -0700
      Re: Editor recommendation George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-08-30 12:42 -0400
        Re: Editor recommendation Paul Urbanus <urb@urbonix.com> - 2013-09-02 21:20 -0500
          Re: Editor recommendation Paul Urbanus <urb@urbonix.com> - 2013-09-04 01:20 -0500
          Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-04 07:22 -0400
    Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-28 19:52 -0700
    Re: Editor recommendation bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> - 2013-08-28 22:41 -0500
      Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-08-29 12:19 +0000
        Re: Editor recommendation bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> - 2013-08-31 11:54 -0500
          Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-09-03 15:32 +0000
    Re: Editor recommendation Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-08-29 09:19 +0300
    Re: Editor recommendation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-08-29 10:01 -0400
      Re: Editor recommendation Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-08-29 18:45 +0300
      Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 12:04 -0700
        Re: Editor recommendation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-29 16:31 -0500
          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-29 15:00 -0700
          Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-30 20:50 -0400
        Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-30 20:37 -0400
          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-30 21:15 -0700
            Re: Editor recommendation Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2013-08-31 12:05 +0200
              Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-31 11:26 -0700
                Re: Editor recommendation Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2013-09-01 20:21 +0200
                  Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-01 17:02 -0700
                    Re: Editor recommendation Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2013-09-02 19:55 +0200
                      Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-02 16:22 -0700
                        Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-02 19:39 -0400
                          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-02 17:51 -0700
                          Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-02 18:49 -0700
            Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-31 15:13 -0400
              Re: Editor recommendation Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-08-31 13:45 -0700
    Re: Editor recommendation Habib Bouaziz-Viallet <h.bouazizviallet@free.fr> - 2013-08-29 16:31 +0200
      Re: Editor recommendation bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> - 2013-08-31 12:03 -0500
        Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-08-31 13:27 -0400
          Re: Editor recommendation bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> - 2013-08-31 13:17 -0500
        Re: Editor recommendation Habib Bouaziz-Viallet <h.bouazizviallet@free.fr> - 2013-09-01 19:16 +0200
          Re: Editor recommendation Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-01 19:52 -0400
            Re: Editor recommendation chris <meru@devnull.com> - 2013-09-03 14:41 +0000
    Re: Editor recommendation jhallen@TheWorld.com (Joseph H Allen) - 2013-08-29 20:09 +0000
    Re: Editor recommendation stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-09-04 12:10 +0000

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#13301

Hi Randy,

On 9/2/2013 4:39 PM, Randy Yates wrote:

> Not that I want to be a usenet topic policeman, but why would
> a group on embedded firmware

   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> be interested in how you typeset your documents? It
> just seems like an odd place to attempt to stimulate such a discussion.

Also not wanting to be a 'net cop...

 From the initial CFV for this newsgroup:

----8<----8<----
CHARTER

The proposed unmoderated newsgroup comp.arch.embedded will be opened
to discussions on topics related to embedded systems, including
embedded programming techniques, tools, hardware systems, and embedded
peripherals such as displays and data entry equipment.  An embedded
system can be described as any application where a dedicated computer
is built right into the system but the end product is not a computer.
For example, the computer system that's built into a typical cable TV
box is considered an embedded system.
----8<----8<----

I think folks tend to think only in terms of "programmers" and
forget that there are other aspects to "embedded systems" *besides*
"writing code".

E.g., specifications, hardware, manuals, test/validation procedures,
etc.  And, the tools and techniques used to perform these activities.

Not *just* "embedded programming techniques".

--don

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

#13283

Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes:
> [...]
> Hi Randy,
> OK, so what's a "150 dpi" display?  If you're viewing an 11" tall
> sheet of paper "at full scale" (i.e., 1:1), that's ~1600 dots
> vertically.

It's 1650 dots. 

>
> Using a 4:3 monitor in landscape mode would require a resolution
> of 1600x2100 in an 18.5" diag display.  A 4:3 monitor in portrait
> mode would require a resolution of 1200x1600 in a 14" diag display.
>
> Using a 16:9 monitor in landscape mode requires a resolution of
> 1600x2850 in a 22.5" display.  In portrait mode, you'd need
> 900x1600 in a 13" display.
>
> [My math may be off -- I haven't done this calculation in a few
> years!]
>
> I.e., you want *small* displays with high resolutions.  And, that
> just barely gives you the visual resolution to determine what's
> actually on the screen!
>
> Most displays with higher resolutions 

You're overloading the word "resolution." In the printing world, which
I'll call p-resolution, it's dots per inch; in the monitor world, which
I'll call m-resolution, it's dots per orientation (vertical or
horizontal). I know you know this, just pulling in the semantics a bit.

> (i.e., *better* than these
> figures!) tend to be physically larger.  

If what you need is a p-resolution of 150 DPI or better, you're not
going to get that p-resolution on any monitor that I know of, precisely
because of this.

For example, the HP ZR30Z is 2560x1600 at a 30 inch diagonal. That is

  Lv = 30 * sin(arctan(1/1.6))
     = 15.9 inches (approx.)

  Lh = 30 * cos(arctan(1/1.6))
     = 25.44 inches (approx.)

So this gets you 

   p-resolution = 1600 / 15.9 
                = 100.6 DPI (approx.)

I know of no smaller monitors that have 2560x1600 resolution. If
they existed then you could of course come closer to 150 DPI.

So yeah, if you need that p-resolution, I guess you'll have to 
view the printed form of your documents. 

Personally I think I could live with a 30-inch monitor because of my own
unique physiology - I am near-sighted and viewing large monitors
close-up best suits me.

By the way, I bought a Lexmark C760 printer a few years' back,
a native 1200x1200 color laser. Delicious output; hellish
operating costs (~$120 per cartridge i a CMYK system)...

--Randy


> Then, you start having to
> deal with "pages" that are too large to comfortably view (unless
> you can lay the monitor *into* the desk surface -- how often do
> you read an 11" tall sheet of paper "standing straight up" on
> it's edge?
>
> So, you either get used to typesetting at a much magnified scale
> (which means you see less of the page and have a distorted view
> of the page's overall presentation) *or* fight trying to resolve
> these fine features in a *coarse* presentation... *or*, resort
> to other tricks (like colored tags) or custom tools to parse
> your documents on your behalf.

-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

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

#13284

Hi Randy,

On 8/31/2013 12:13 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> Hi Randy,
>> OK, so what's a "150 dpi" display?  If you're viewing an 11" tall
>> sheet of paper "at full scale" (i.e., 1:1), that's ~1600 dots
>> vertically.
>
> It's 1650 dots.

Yes.  But you don't really need to see the top/bottom margins
(OTOH, you have to make allowances for the button bar, window
frame, etc.)  I'm trying to give a *feel* for the problem;
not "engineer a solution".

>> Using a 4:3 monitor in landscape mode would require a resolution
>> of 1600x2100 in an 18.5" diag display.  A 4:3 monitor in portrait
>> mode would require a resolution of 1200x1600 in a 14" diag display.
>>
>> Using a 16:9 monitor in landscape mode requires a resolution of
>> 1600x2850 in a 22.5" display.  In portrait mode, you'd need
>> 900x1600 in a 13" display.
>>
>> [My math may be off -- I haven't done this calculation in a few
>> years!]
>>
>> I.e., you want *small* displays with high resolutions.  And, that
>> just barely gives you the visual resolution to determine what's
>> actually on the screen!
>>
>> Most displays with higher resolutions
>
> You're overloading the word "resolution." In the printing world, which
> I'll call p-resolution, it's dots per inch; in the monitor world, which
> I'll call m-resolution, it's dots per orientation (vertical or
> horizontal). I know you know this, just pulling in the semantics a bit.
>
>> (i.e., *better* than these
>> figures!) tend to be physically larger.
>
> If what you need is a p-resolution of 150 DPI or better, you're not
> going to get that p-resolution on any monitor that I know of, precisely
> because of this.
>
> For example, the HP ZR30Z is 2560x1600 at a 30 inch diagonal. That is
>
>    Lv = 30 * sin(arctan(1/1.6))
>       = 15.9 inches (approx.)
>
>    Lh = 30 * cos(arctan(1/1.6))
>       = 25.44 inches (approx.)
>
> So this gets you
>
>     p-resolution = 1600 / 15.9
>                  = 100.6 DPI (approx.)
>
> I know of no smaller monitors that have 2560x1600 resolution. If
> they existed then you could of course come closer to 150 DPI.

Exactly.  This is the problem I face with my current monitors;
I end up needing to view the image at > 100% physical scale
(so, you're reading a single sheet of paper yet encountering
it more like you would a *newspaper*)

And, 150 dpi is a *huge* concession -- as I was trying to
illustrate with my "font" descriptions.

As I said (tongue-in-cheek) "you just can't get a monitor *big*
enough!!"

> So yeah, if you need that p-resolution, I guess you'll have to
> view the printed form of your documents.
>
> Personally I think I could live with a 30-inch monitor because of my own
> unique physiology - I am near-sighted and viewing large monitors
> close-up best suits me.

Myopia/astigmatism -- so, even with just a *mild* Rx, detail falls
off *quickly* with distance.  At a distance where you would
typically hold a sheet of paper or a book, I can see very fine
detail (assuming enough ambient light).  Put a large monitor
(or monitors) on a desktop at arm's length and all that detail
melts away.

(I.e., I want a 14" portrait monitor at half that distance but
with much higher resolution -- so it *can* reproduce that level
of detail.  I've been looking at some very high resolution B&W
LCD monitors but the loss of color capability makes that yet
another tradeoff.)

> By the way, I bought a Lexmark C760 printer a few years' back,
> a native 1200x1200 color laser. Delicious output; hellish
> operating costs (~$120 per cartridge i a CMYK system)...

I use a duplexed Phaser (solid ink) for proof copies (1000x1000).
Nice "magazine-like" finish to the page (melted wax).  Ink "sticks"
are ~$50/color (CMYK) for ~2500 pages (at "nominal" coverage rates)
so, about 12c per page.  But, I can usually find supplies being
discarded, sold at local auctions, etc.  (IME, this is a *huge*
advantage for that solid ink form -- really long shelf life even
after "opened"!)

Unfortunately, it leaves the place smelling of "melted crayons" for
the better part of the day.

[Startup has a big ink cost associated with it as it cleans
the ink wells, drum, etc.  So, I wait until I have a few hundred
pages to run off before firing it up]

When a document is "done", I have it printed at a nearby service
bureau (of course, the interactive and multimedia portions of the
documents don't "print").

For "lower quality, higher volume" output (presentations, etc.),
I use a 600/1200 dpi color laser (but the images don't seem to
be as vibrant or crisp as with the phaser).

For *much* higher volume, a duplexed 600 dpi (monochrome) laser
makes it really easy to run off hundreds of pages in a few
minutes.  But, this is usually only useful for proofreading
text and checking placements of images/tables/text/etc. in a
very coarse way.

And, for day-to-day "one offs", a low temperature 600 dpi laser.

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

#13233

On 28/08/2013 22:18, Roberto Waltman wrote:
> For some reason never got used to Emacs

What are exactly the reason(s) why you have excluded Emacs ?

I have been using Emacs for 15 years (sometimes extensively) and i 
always enjoy using it as an editor for C/C++. I think Emacs is one of 
few tools making you a better programmer.

H

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

#13278

On 08/29/2013 09:31 AM, Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
> On 28/08/2013 22:18, Roberto Waltman wrote:
>> For some reason never got used to Emacs
>
> What are exactly the reason(s) why you have excluded Emacs ?
>
> I have been using Emacs for 15 years (sometimes extensively) and i
> always enjoy using it as an editor for C/C++. I think Emacs is one of
> few tools making you a better programmer.
>
> H

I tried for about 5 years to like Emacs. I knew it was the right way, 
since the graybeards used it exclusively.

One weekend maybe 10 years ago I set down, and did not quit until I 
could hack my way through it. It makes sense when you remember it was 
constructed for the barely usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.

These days Emacs and XEmacs are lacking many modern niceties that I 
can't seem to find the extensions for. There used to be a saying - if 
Emacs does not do it, you probably do not need to do it. Not so much 
anymore. Try to find a way to collapse scopes (no cheating, like writing 
it yourself :).

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

#13279

bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> writes:

> On 08/29/2013 09:31 AM, Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>> On 28/08/2013 22:18, Roberto Waltman wrote:
>>> For some reason never got used to Emacs
>>
>> What are exactly the reason(s) why you have excluded Emacs ?
>>
>> I have been using Emacs for 15 years (sometimes extensively) and i
>> always enjoy using it as an editor for C/C++. I think Emacs is one of
>> few tools making you a better programmer.
>>
>> H
>
> I tried for about 5 years to like Emacs. I knew it was the right way,
> since the graybeards used it exclusively.
>
> One weekend maybe 10 years ago I set down, and did not quit until I
> could hack my way through it. It makes sense when you remember it was
> constructed for the barely usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.
>
> These days Emacs and XEmacs are lacking many modern niceties that I
> can't seem to find the extensions for. There used to be a saying - if
> Emacs does not do it, you probably do not need to do it. Not so much
> anymore. Try to find a way to collapse scopes (no cheating, like
> writing it yourself :).

http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HideShow
-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

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

#13280

On 08/31/2013 12:27 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> bbhack <bbhack@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 08/29/2013 09:31 AM, Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2013 22:18, Roberto Waltman wrote:
>>>> For some reason never got used to Emacs
>>>
>>> What are exactly the reason(s) why you have excluded Emacs ?
>>>
>>> I have been using Emacs for 15 years (sometimes extensively) and i
>>> always enjoy using it as an editor for C/C++. I think Emacs is one of
>>> few tools making you a better programmer.
>>>
>>> H
>>
>> I tried for about 5 years to like Emacs. I knew it was the right way,
>> since the graybeards used it exclusively.
>>
>> One weekend maybe 10 years ago I set down, and did not quit until I
>> could hack my way through it. It makes sense when you remember it was
>> constructed for the barely usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.
>>
>> These days Emacs and XEmacs are lacking many modern niceties that I
>> can't seem to find the extensions for. There used to be a saying - if
>> Emacs does not do it, you probably do not need to do it. Not so much
>> anymore. Try to find a way to collapse scopes (no cheating, like
>> writing it yourself :).
>
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HideShow
>

How did I know this was going to happen? :)

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

#13290

Le 31/08/13 19:03, bbhack a écrit :
> It makes sense when you remember it was constructed for the barely
> usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.
That probably the reason my opinion is biased ... but you know, i'm 
nearly 50 old and as a consultant i sometimes work with younger 
engineers without Unix culture. i figured out how poor the tools they 
use and how enjoyed they are when sometimes i'm sharing my knowledge 
with them. Emacs is certainly a big thing to master - no one can - i 
maintain using Emacs makes you a programmer.

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

#13292

Habib Bouaziz-Viallet <h.bouazizviallet@free.fr> writes:

> Le 31/08/13 19:03, bbhack a écrit :
>> It makes sense when you remember it was constructed for the barely
>> usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.
> That probably the reason my opinion is biased ... but you know, i'm
> nearly 50 old and as a consultant i sometimes work with younger
> engineers without Unix culture. i figured out how poor the tools they
> use and how enjoyed they are when sometimes i'm sharing my knowledge
> with them. Emacs is certainly a big thing to master - no one can - i
> maintain using Emacs makes you a programmer.

Hear, hear!
-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

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

#13303

On 09/01/13 23:52, Randy Yates wrote:
> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet<h.bouazizviallet@free.fr>  writes:
>
>> Le 31/08/13 19:03, bbhack a écrit :
>>> It makes sense when you remember it was constructed for the barely
>>> usable terminals of 25-30 years ago.
>> That probably the reason my opinion is biased ... but you know, i'm
>> nearly 50 old and as a consultant i sometimes work with younger
>> engineers without Unix culture. i figured out how poor the tools they
>> use and how enjoyed they are when sometimes i'm sharing my knowledge
>> with them. Emacs is certainly a big thing to master - no one can - i
>> maintain using Emacs makes you a programmer.
>
> Hear, hear!

I always thought editors were a very subjective, personal thing and you
never get agreement :-). I had a look at Emacs years ago, but never really
got to grips with it. May have been biased, but it reminded me of the single
line editors on teletypes, which i've also had to use and the feeling was
that it just belonged to another age. I want to program C, for example, not
learn how to program an editor, which I really only expect to edit text and
nothing more. It's just so much more natural to have full screen gui based
editing. All the submode stuff that you get with some editors is really just
noise and complication for no reason, but of course, in the days of 
teletypes
and serial line terminals, it was the only way to do it.

I have an original copy of the DEC Teco editor manual somewhere,  and I did
try that as well, but it's even more arcane and impenetrable than Emacs...

Chris

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

#13245

In article <kems19dsqi8b4s4m1gcfm3ilgd48au2v5q@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman  <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:

>What editor would you recommend for code development?
>Looking for something that understands C & C++ syntax, can define
>projects, run external compilations, etc. and has active support.

Joe's Own Editor: http://joe-editor.sourceforge.net/

-- 
/*  jhallen@world.std.com AB1GO */                        /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}

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

#13309

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:18:41 -0400, Roberto Waltman
<usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:

>What editor would you recommend for code development?
>Looking for something that understands C & C++ syntax, can define
>projects, run external compilations, etc. and has active support.
>My choice would be CodeWrite, (if it was still supported.)

When our editor oc hoice disappeared, we ended up with UltraEdit
which is now available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. Not
free, but the price is very reasonable. The tech support is
excellent.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web