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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #186307 > unrolled thread

Recommended editor for novice programmers?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Recommended editor for novice programmers? Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:30 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:40 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2017-09-02 21:10 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-02 22:20 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:20 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-02 23:10 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Fred <fred@blakemfg.com> - 2017-09-03 03:00 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:40 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2017-09-03 03:20 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? davidson@freevolt.org - 2017-09-03 00:40 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 02:50 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-03 03:00 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 03:20 +0200
              Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-09-03 08:20 +0200
                Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 16:00 +0200
              Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 13:40 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> - 2017-09-03 17:40 +0200
              Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 17:50 +0200
                Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-09-03 18:10 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2017-09-03 03:40 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> - 2017-09-03 18:10 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:50 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:30 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:40 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-09-02 21:10 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? solitone <solitone@mail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:50 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-03 21:10 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 21:40 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-03 21:50 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? solitone <solitone@mail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:50 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-02 21:30 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? davidson@freevolt.org - 2017-09-03 00:00 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-09-03 04:30 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2017-09-04 17:50 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 23:30 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-09-04 23:40 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? soyeomul@doraji.xyz (Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희, 黃炳熙)) - 2017-09-03 12:10 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:00 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2017-09-03 20:50 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-09-03 23:50 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2017-09-04 01:30 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Morten Bo Johansen <mbj@spamcop.net> - 2017-09-04 18:00 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 06:00 +0200
    Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-09-06 07:00 +0200
      Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?] Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-09-06 08:10 +0200
        Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice  programmers?] Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-09-08 04:20 +0200
          Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice  programmers?] Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-09-08 09:40 +0200
          Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-08 23:20 +0200
            Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?] Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2017-09-10 06:00 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2017-09-06 08:20 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-06 10:20 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-06 15:10 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? "Gian Uberto Lauri" <saint@eng.it> - 2017-09-06 15:10 +0200
              Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-09-06 17:30 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-09-08 04:30 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-08 23:20 +0200
            top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-08 23:50 +0200
              Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for  novice programmers?) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-09 02:10 +0200
                Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 13:50 +0200
                  Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for  novice programmers?) Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-09-10 05:00 +0200
                    Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-10 14:00 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2017-09-10 05:50 +0200
      Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? "Gian Uberto Lauri" <saint@eng.it> - 2017-09-06 11:00 +0200
        Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 11:20 +0200
          Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2017-09-06 20:20 +0200
            Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2017-09-07 01:10 +0200
              Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> - 2017-09-09 02:40 +0200
                Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-09-09 18:30 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#186307 — Recommended editor for novice programmers?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

My Linux user group is setting up one desktop computer and one laptop
computer for lending to our local library as an educational resource for
folks who want to explore what Linux is all about.  We are using Debian 9
for now.

I am open to any suggestions for standard packages we should add. I have
already installed gcc and friends as well as Scilab, R, Perl 6, and some
other stuff, including emacs.

I would especially appreciate other ideas for programming editors for
novice programmers.

Thanks.

Best regards,

-Tom

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#186309

On 02-09-17, Tom Browder wrote:
> My Linux user group is setting up one desktop computer and one laptop
> computer for lending to our local library as an educational resource for
> folks who want to explore what Linux is all about.  We are using Debian 9
> for now.
> 
> I am open to any suggestions for standard packages we should add. I have
> already installed gcc and friends as well as Scilab, R, Perl 6, and some
> other stuff, including emacs.
> 
> I would especially appreciate other ideas for programming editors for
> novice programmers.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Tom

You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.

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

#186316

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> My Linux user group is setting up one desktop computer and one laptop
> computer for lending to our local library as an educational resource for
> folks who want to explore what Linux is all about.  We are using Debian 9
> for now.

The first think is to realize that Linux is a kernel, not an operating
system. A more appropriate name for the OS is GNU/Linux. Moreover, that
is the name Debian uses for its GNU/Linux versions (it also has other
kernels available).

>I am open to any suggestions for standard packages we should add. I have
already installed gcc and friends as well as Scilab, R, Perl 6, and some
other stuff, including emacs.

Useful suggestions can not be given in this regard because it dpeneds on
what the users are going to do with the computer.

Just leaving a computer with GNU/Linux is not a good idea to teach
people about GNU/Linux. You should have a person there to show them the
system and talk about free software.

On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.

These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim are.

-- 
Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan

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

#186319

On Saturday 02 September 2017 15:03:23 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:

> > My Linux user group is setting up one desktop computer and one
> > laptop computer for lending to our local library as an educational
> > resource for folks who want to explore what Linux is all about.  We
> > are using Debian 9 for now.
>
> The first think is to realize that Linux is a kernel, not an operating
> system. A more appropriate name for the OS is GNU/Linux. Moreover,
> that is the name Debian uses for its GNU/Linux versions (it also has
> other kernels available).
>
> >I am open to any suggestions for standard packages we should add. I
> > have
>
> already installed gcc and friends as well as Scilab, R, Perl 6, and
> some other stuff, including emacs.
>
> Useful suggestions can not be given in this regard because it dpeneds
> on what the users are going to do with the computer.
>
> Just leaving a computer with GNU/Linux is not a good idea to teach
> people about GNU/Linux. You should have a person there to show them
> the system and talk about free software.
>
> On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> > You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
>
> These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
> require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
> your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
> GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim are.

Agreed.  Bad Karma to most folks.

Along that line of "intro" software, I'd suggest geany (never ever gedit, 
its file saving is /not/ stable) as a text editor, timidity for midi 
music creation or playing, rosegarden and lilypond for creating/printing 
music in sheet notation.  And, given hard drive space enough available 
to handle movies, if their movie camera can be controlled by it, by all 
means kino. But I'd recommend the kino users to bring their own mass 
storage since a 20 minute wedding can, depending on the camera, use well 
over 30GB of your hard drive space.  There is also blender for movies 
but its learning curve is steeper than kino's.  And AFAIK, it doesn't 
control the camera.

My 2 cents.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#186320

On 02-09-17, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> > You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
> 
> These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
> require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
> your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
> GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim are.
> 
> -- 
> Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan
> 

That depends on whom you ask. For me, there was not anything arcane in
both Emacs and Vim. I've found them easier to use than nano, for
example. OP is looking for programming editor. While there are some GUI
based editors that can fulfill that role, with some extensions added and
or enabled, for most beginner programming tasks, Vim and Emacs will do
fine. Net is full of tutorials and primers for both, some of which are
really excellent source of getting started. I've did try them as soon as
I've started to get into command line and bash scripts and I've never
looked back. Others I've tried, including but not limited to nano,
Gedit, Kate and so on were not so pleasant to use for anything but quick
one line editing, reading some text or copy paste things. And if someone
prefers GUI editor, there is always gvim. Though all that stuff like
what is best editor/desktop environment/music player/insert something
here is matter of opinion and taste, not facts. Including, but certainly
not limited to my opinion. And OP certainly can install several
different editors and let users try them all and pick what suites them
best.

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

#186325

Dejan writes:
> And if someone prefers GUI editor, there is always gvim.

Emacs is also a GUI editor if you want it to be.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#186334

On 09/02/2017 01:17 PM, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> On 02-09-17, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
>>> You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
>> These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
>> require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
>> your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
>> GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim are.
>>
>> -- 
>> Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan
>>
> That depends on whom you ask. For me, there was not anything arcane in
> both Emacs and Vim. I've found them easier to use than nano, for
> example. OP is looking for programming editor. While there are some GUI
> based editors that can fulfill that role, with some extensions added and
> or enabled, for most beginner programming tasks, Vim and Emacs will do
> fine. Net is full of tutorials and primers for both, some of which are
> really excellent source of getting started. I've did try them as soon as
> I've started to get into command line and bash scripts and I've never
> looked back. Others I've tried, including but not limited to nano,
> Gedit, Kate and so on were not so pleasant to use for anything but quick
> one line editing, reading some text or copy paste things. And if someone
> prefers GUI editor, there is always gvim. Though all that stuff like
> what is best editor/desktop environment/music player/insert something
> here is matter of opinion and taste, not facts. Including, but certainly
> not limited to my opinion. And OP certainly can install several
> different editors and let users try them all and pick what suites them
> best.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I recommend nedit for programming editor.  It is very easy to use.  I 
have been using it for assembler programming for more than 17 years.
Best regards,
Fred Boatwright

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

#186323

On Saturday, September 02, 2017 03:03:23 PM Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> The first think is to realize that Linux is a kernel, not an operating
> system. A more appropriate name for the OS is GNU/Linux. Moreover, that
> is the name Debian uses for its GNU/Linux versions (it also has other
> kernels available).

This is OT to the subject of this thread,but at first I was going to comment 
and say that there is also, for example, KDE/Linux, as, indeed, I rarely touch 
anything graphical that is GNU.  But, then I remembered that a lot of the--
hmm, what should I call them--I'll say boilerplate even though it is not what 
I really mean--command line programs are GNU.

Without being entirely sure, I guess that includes things like ls, bash, ...

Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud (or maybe not thinking).

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

#186336

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 02/09/17 15:37, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 02, 2017 03:03:23 PM Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> This is OT to the subject of this thread,but at first I was going to comment 
> and say that there is also, for example, KDE/Linux, as, indeed, I rarely touch 
> anything graphical that is GNU.  But, then I remembered that a lot of the--
> hmm, what should I call them--I'll say boilerplate even though it is not what 
> I really mean--command line programs are GNU.
> 
> Without being entirely sure, I guess that includes things like ls, bash, ...

By your logic, if you think components you “don't touch” are not worth
mentioning, then you have to omit Linux.

Anyway, whatever name you prefer for the operating system (Debian
prefers GNU/Linux in official places; e.g.: the release names), the fact
is that Linux is not an operating system but only a kernel.

-- 
Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan

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

#186329

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
[snip]
> On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
>> You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
>
> These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
> require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
> your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
> GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim
> are.

I somehow doubt that you yourself find Emacs or Vim "difficult to
use", or believe their design is "arcane". (Of course, I might well be
mistaken. I'm only guessing.)

My contrary view, for whatever it might be worth: In the early weeks
of my own initiation to a unix-like operating system, we used
Emacs. Accompanied by a cheat-sheet of commonly useful keyboard
shortcuts, I found that learning the basics of Emacs in particular,
and navigating the self-contained documentation, was an eye-opening
introduction to the unix-like world and its universe of reliable
tools.

When, many years later, I developed a greater interest in computers, I
was happy to discover that

   1. I hadn't been taught only how to ride a tricycle, but had been
   riding a full-fledged bicycle all along, and

   2. I would never need to learn to use another text-editor again, if
   I didn't want to do so.

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

#186332

On Saturday, September 02, 2017 06:46:33 PM davidson@freevolt.org wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> >> You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
> > 
> > These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
> > require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
> > your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
> > GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim
> > are.
> 
> I somehow doubt that you yourself find Emacs or Vim "difficult to
> use", or believe their design is "arcane". (Of course, I might well be
> mistaken. I'm only guessing.)
> 
> My contrary view, for whatever it might be worth: In the early weeks
> of my own initiation to a unix-like operating system, we used
> Emacs. Accompanied by a cheat-sheet of commonly useful keyboard
> shortcuts, I found that learning the basics of Emacs in particular,
> and navigating the self-contained documentation, was an eye-opening
> introduction to the unix-like world and its universe of reliable
> tools.
> 
> When, many years later, I developed a greater interest in computers, I
> was happy to discover that
> 
>    1. I hadn't been taught only how to ride a tricycle, but had been
>    riding a full-fledged bicycle all along, and
> 
>    2. I would never need to learn to use another text-editor again, if
>    I didn't want to do so.

I "grew up" using editors (of a sort) (or card punches) (or teletype machines) 
on a variety of other OSs (IBM 360, Univac 1108, PDP-8, -11 (and one other) 
VAX, Foxboro, Westinghouse, (not in sequential order), and eventually DOS, 
Windows, and Linux.  I didn't encounter Vim or Emacs until I got to Linux.  By 
then I was very used to GUI editors, a vast improvement over things I had used 
before.

I made more than one attempt to learn both, and I do occasionally use vi (when 
I'm stuck with no other editor), but I wouldn't wish either on a novice 
programmer.  Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good GUI 
editor with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros, outlining / 
folding, syntax highlighting, and such.

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

#186333

rhkramer writes:
> Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good GUI editor
> with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros, outlining /
> folding, syntax highlighting, and such.

Emacs has all of those as well as a GUI.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#186335

On 02-09-17, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 02, 2017 06:46:33 PM davidson@freevolt.org wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > On 02/09/17 13:34, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> > >> You can set up both Vim and Emacs as powerful programming editors.
> > > 
> > > These are the *worst* possible suggestions. Both of these editors
> > > require a lot of learning to even use them at all. If the OP follows
> > > your advice, his users will have the impression that all software in
> > > GNU/Linux is as arcane and difficult to use as GNU Emacs and Vim
> > > are.
> > 
> > I somehow doubt that you yourself find Emacs or Vim "difficult to
> > use", or believe their design is "arcane". (Of course, I might well be
> > mistaken. I'm only guessing.)
> > 
> > My contrary view, for whatever it might be worth: In the early weeks
> > of my own initiation to a unix-like operating system, we used
> > Emacs. Accompanied by a cheat-sheet of commonly useful keyboard
> > shortcuts, I found that learning the basics of Emacs in particular,
> > and navigating the self-contained documentation, was an eye-opening
> > introduction to the unix-like world and its universe of reliable
> > tools.
> > 
> > When, many years later, I developed a greater interest in computers, I
> > was happy to discover that
> > 
> >    1. I hadn't been taught only how to ride a tricycle, but had been
> >    riding a full-fledged bicycle all along, and
> > 
> >    2. I would never need to learn to use another text-editor again, if
> >    I didn't want to do so.
> 
> I "grew up" using editors (of a sort) (or card punches) (or teletype machines) 
> on a variety of other OSs (IBM 360, Univac 1108, PDP-8, -11 (and one other) 
> VAX, Foxboro, Westinghouse, (not in sequential order), and eventually DOS, 
> Windows, and Linux.  I didn't encounter Vim or Emacs until I got to Linux.  By 
> then I was very used to GUI editors, a vast improvement over things I had used 
> before.
> 
> I made more than one attempt to learn both, and I do occasionally use vi (when 
> I'm stuck with no other editor), but I wouldn't wish either on a novice 
> programmer.  Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good GUI 
> editor with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros, outlining / 
> folding, syntax highlighting, and such.
> 

Actually, they do have advantage, plus all those things that you've
mentioned. Their advantage is in the speed of moving around. Plus tones
of extensions, scripts, addons that exist for them. If you search around
for best programming editor, most searches will return vim. Sure, that
does not mean it is best for you. But it is certainly not bad
recommendation. Nor is Emacs. They are about same. But both have
downside. Best downside of Vim I've found would be this:

"Once you're used to it, you won't like other editors

When your fingers have learned Vim's keyboard commands, you'll find
yourself reaching for them even when using other text editors. You'll
get frustrated every time you have to reach for the mouse or move your
cursor letter by letter with the arrow keys. You'll notice every time a
Vim feature would save you time and tedium, and you'll wish the editor
you're actually using had it. You'll wish the editor was Vim. You'll
wish everything was Vim. You'll wish this imperfect world we live in
could somehow become just a little bit more graceful, a little bit more
elegant, by adopting modal text editing as a common paradigm. You'll
wish desperately that this world was that better one. But it isn't. It
isn't. And it never will be.:wq"

Best downside of Emacs would be that once you really start working in
it, you can start living in it. Best upside of Emacs is that it has evil
mode.

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

#186344

On 03.09.17 03:17, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> On 02-09-17, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 02, 2017 06:46:33 PM davidson@freevolt.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > When, many years later, I developed a greater interest in computers, I
> > > was happy to discover that
> > > 
> > >    1. I hadn't been taught only how to ride a tricycle, but had been
> > >    riding a full-fledged bicycle all along, and
> > > 
> > >    2. I would never need to learn to use another text-editor again, if
> > >    I didn't want to do so.
...

If the proposed users are dilettante programmers, then it matters little
what they use. If they intend to become professional, then it is
definitely worth trading up to a 17-gear bicycle, from the
one-foot-on-the ground scooter that anything less than vim, emacs, and
maybe nano is¹.

All those gears do provide a useful productivity improvement, as I've
found in over 30 years of programming. Vim has useful configurable
support for consistent 'C' indenting, and emacs doubtless does too.
Abbreviations and key mappings allow custom shortcuts, to reduce fatigue
in long coding sessions. Run ctags (preferably exuberant ctags) first,
and a double keystroke will take you to the definition of the function
name under the cursor. That's gold when you're herding a hundred
functions to get the job done.

GUI mavens speak of GUI IDEs, but there is no need for a constraining
Point_n_Grunt menu maze when "*nix is the IDE" once you have vim or
emacs and ctags.

The programming task is not complete without documentation. The 420+
page document which summarises some of the programming & sysadmin stuff
I've mucked with over the decades, and serves as wetware backup, became
a little hard to navigate and keep ordered as it grew. But multi-level
folding fixed that. It is worth its weight in chocolate bars - I kid you
not.

But consider also the simple stuff. To find 20 occurrences of e.g. a
function name, and change it in some cases but not others, involves only
an alternation of 'n' and '.' (repeat last action) after the initial
find and cw (change-word) in vim. Emacs uses more keyboard chords, but
but can doubtless do it too. Whatever editor is used, it should let you
make the 20 edits in less than 15 seconds, without sweat, or going mouse
hunting.

> Best downside of Vim I've found would be this:
> 
> "Once you're used to it, you won't like other editors
> 
> When your fingers have learned Vim's keyboard commands, you'll find
> yourself reaching for them even when using other text editors. You'll
> get frustrated every time you have to reach for the mouse or move your
> cursor letter by letter with the arrow keys. You'll notice every time a
> Vim feature would save you time and tedium, and you'll wish the editor
> you're actually using had it. You'll wish the editor was Vim. You'll
> wish everything was Vim. You'll wish this imperfect world we live in
> could somehow become just a little bit more graceful, a little bit more
> elegant, by adopting modal text editing as a common paradigm. You'll
> wish desperately that this world was that better one. But it isn't. It
> isn't. And it never will be.:wq"

There is no exaggeration in that. But the bicycle analogy is apt. It
takes a period of consistent use to gain sufficient proficiency for the
cheat-sheet training wheels to be able to be put aside. But it's worth
it. Promise.

And I do use vim almost everywhere. This post is being composed in vim,
invoked within mutt as its editor. I have English, Danish, and German
spell checking set up, invoking it only after the initial compose pass.
There's word completion, but I've never cottoned on to that.

In short, pick a good one, so you only ever need to learn the one.

¹ What do other programmers use? Here's a reddit survey (nano did well):
  https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6ihxua/officially_settled_vim_5x_more_popular_than_emacs/

Erik

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

#186382

I saw (after I posted my last comments) that the OP (Tom Browder) has gently 
suggested that he has heard enough, but I feel compelled to add a few more 
comments, just to make sure things are clear.  

Not all of my comments are relevant to this post, so I'll add this here:

The survey that someone else mentioned forced the responder to choose between 
Emacs, Vim, nano, and Microsoft Notepad (iirc).  At least one other category 
should have been included, and I'd suggest it be a generic "[Linux] GUI 
editor" (where Linux is optional).

There are so many GUI editors that to mention any one would splinter the 
"vote" so much that any such editor would be lucky to get 0.1% of the vote, 
yet, as a group, there would be a significant number of votes.

PS: Various things snipped without marking all of them.

On Sunday, September 03, 2017 02:18:52 AM Erik Christiansen wrote:
> If the proposed users are dilettante programmers, then it matters little
> what they use. If they intend to become professional, then it is
> definitely worth trading up to a 17-gear bicycle, from the
> one-foot-on-the ground scooter that anything less than vim, emacs, and
> maybe nano is¹.

Just a totally irrelevant comment: a 17-gear bicycle would be "unusual".

> All those gears do provide a useful productivity improvement, as I've
> found in over 30 years of programming. Vim has useful configurable
> support for consistent 'C' indenting, and emacs doubtless does too.
> Abbreviations and key mappings allow custom shortcuts, to reduce fatigue
> in long coding sessions. Run ctags (preferably exuberant ctags) first,
> and a double keystroke will take you to the definition of the function
> name under the cursor. 

Other (GUI) editors have interfaces of one sort or another that can run ctags 
and similar shortcut mechanisms to get to the definition of the function.

Further (maybe not relevant to this particular post), there are various means 
of keeping indentation (and formatting) consistent throughout multiple files, 
including various flavors of autoindent and interfaces to various pretty 
printers and such.

> The programming task is not complete without documentation. The 420+
> page document which summarises some of the programming & sysadmin stuff
> I've mucked with over the decades, and serves as wetware backup, became
> a little hard to navigate and keep ordered as it grew. But multi-level
> folding fixed that. It is worth its weight in chocolate bars - I kid you
> not.

Multi-level folding is also available in many GUI editors.
 
> But consider also the simple stuff. To find 20 occurrences of e.g. a
> function name, and change it in some cases but not others, involves only
> an alternation of 'n' and '.' (repeat last action) after the initial
> find and cw (change-word) in vim. Emacs uses more keyboard chords, but
> but can doubtless do it too. Whatever editor is used, it should let you
> make the 20 edits in less than 15 seconds, without sweat, or going mouse
> hunting.

Similar features exist in many GUI editors.

> There is no exaggeration in that. But the bicycle analogy is apt. It
> takes a period of consistent use to gain sufficient proficiency for the
> cheat-sheet training wheels to be able to be put aside. But it's worth
> it. Promise.
> 
> And I do use vim almost everywhere. This post is being composed in vim,
> invoked within mutt as its editor. I have English, Danish, and German
> spell checking set up, invoking it only after the initial compose pass.
> There's word completion, but I've never cottoned on to that.
> 
> In short, pick a good one, so you only ever need to learn the one.
> 
> ¹ What do other programmers use? Here's a reddit survey (nano did well):
>  
> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6ihxua/officially_settled_vim_5x_m
> ore_popular_than_emacs/

Oops, OK my comment on the survey is apropriate to this post.

One final comment: If either Emacs or Vim are really so good that all 
programmers (and users?) should be indoctrinated to use it, I would suggest 
that it be modified something like the following:

All (well at least all fairly common features) should be accessible by GUI / 
mouse methods similar to those in most GUI editors.  Then, there should be (an 
optional) function which notes whether a user is accessing a feature via the 
mouse or via a keyboard shortcut, and how often he is doing so.

Then, with the option on, on some (presumably occasional basis) messages like 
this might pop up:

"In the last two hours, you have done a multiple search and replace using the 
mouse interface 17 times.  The same thing can be done via the keyboard 
shortcut <such and such>.  In those two hours, you spent 12 minutes doing 
those 17 multiple search and replace operations.  We expect that if you had 
done that using the keyboard shortcut, you could have done the same thing in 7 
minutes."

lol, but not really--I'm serious (well, except for the part about "either  
Emacs or Vim" being "really so good that all programmers (and users?) should 
be indoctrinated to use it",

Then, if it means enough to that particular user, he might learn and start 
using that particular keyboard shortcut.

I hope I'll shut up now ;-)

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

#186362

I guess we're into editor religion--have we been trolled?  But ...

On Saturday, September 02, 2017 09:17:01 PM Dejan Jocic wrote:
> You'll
> get frustrated every time you have to reach for the mouse or move your
> cursor letter by letter with the arrow keys. 

If the last time you used a GUI editor you had to use the mouse to move more 
than a letter at a time, I would guess it's been a while since you tried one.  
In most of the editors I've used, <ctrl><[left or right] arrow> moves a word 
at a time, <ctrl><[left or right] arrow> moves further (like a line or a 
"paragraph".

I don't find much use for anything more than that, but, iirc, some editors have 
additional such navigation (and editing, e.g., delete a word, line, 
paragagraph) shortcuts.

> You'll notice every time a
> Vim feature would save you time and tedium, and you'll wish the editor
> you're actually using had it. You'll wish the editor was Vim. You'll
> wish everything was Vim. You'll wish this imperfect world we live in
> could somehow become just a little bit more graceful, a little bit more
> elegant, by adopting modal text editing as a common paradigm. You'll
> wish desperately that this world was that better one. But it isn't. It
> isn't. And it never will be.:wq"
> 
> Best downside of Emacs would be that once you really start working in
> it, you can start living in it. Best upside of Emacs is that it has evil
> mode.

Yes, I can see the advantage of sort of living in an editor.  I don't do much 
programming these days, but I do write and respond to emails and write and 
modify / add comments to web pages.  It would be nice to do all of that within 
the same editor, but in which I also saw the pictures and the layout as 
displayed on the web page.  I don't think anyone (including Emacs) is there 
yet.

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

#186387

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 20:46:33 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

>I do occasionally use vi (when 
>I'm stuck with no other editor), but I wouldn't wish either on a novice 
>programmer.  Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good GUI 
>editor with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros, outlining / 
>folding, syntax highlighting, and such.

The vi (visual interface) editor was used by AT&T (the developers of
Unix under government contract) service personnel to administrate the
US telephone network over dial-up connections.  As there was no mouse
support in those early days, vi was designed to be used entirely from
the keyboard, a feature touch-typists will appreciate because it
doesn't require reaching for a mouse and abandoning the home-row hand
positions.  

With regard to the missing features being lamented above:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-vim-script-1/index.html
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2009/01/vi-and-vim-macro-tutorial-how-to-record-and-play/
https://majutsushi.github.io/tagbar/

For syntax highlighting, simply write: "Esc:syntax on" to activate the
builtin.

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

#186389

On Sunday, September 03, 2017 11:30:09 AM Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 20:46:33 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> >I do occasionally use vi (when
> >I'm stuck with no other editor), but I wouldn't wish either on a novice
> >programmer.  Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good
> >GUI editor with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros,
> >outlining / folding, syntax highlighting, and such.

...

> With regard to the missing features being lamented above:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-vim-script-1/index.html
> http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2009/01/vi-and-vim-macro-tutorial-how-to-record
> -and-play/ https://majutsushi.github.io/tagbar/
> 
> For syntax highlighting, simply write: "Esc:syntax on" to activate the
> builtin.

Hmm, I guess I need to clarify--I wasn't lamenting or trying to imply any 
missing features in vi/vim or Emacs, but rather trying to respond to others 
who seemed to believe such features didn't exist in many GUI editors.

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

#186390

emacs has succession arranged, vim does not.  If the creator of vim gets 
struck by lightning and has his brains fried, no succession exists to 
continue support of vim in the event of his incapacity.  Succession of 
emacs was passed along to three who are known by r.m.s. willing and able 
to handle that job already.
Now for my offering, has ne and e4 been considered yet?  The e4 editor 
may be named e3, but I think by now it's e4.  I don't know the status of 
elvis succession but that may be a possibility for vim users if it's 
been handled by now.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 11:48:24
> From: rhkramer@gmail.com
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?
> Resent-Date: Sun,  3 Sep 2017 15:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> 
> On Sunday, September 03, 2017 11:30:09 AM Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 20:46:33 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I do occasionally use vi (when
>>> I'm stuck with no other editor), but I wouldn't wish either on a novice
>>> programmer.  Further, I don't think they have any advantage over a good
>>> GUI editor with features like a scripting language, keyboard macros,
>>> outlining / folding, syntax highlighting, and such.
>
> ...
>
>> With regard to the missing features being lamented above:
>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-vim-script-1/index.html
>> http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2009/01/vi-and-vim-macro-tutorial-how-to-record
>> -and-play/ https://majutsushi.github.io/tagbar/
>>
>> For syntax highlighting, simply write: "Esc:syntax on" to activate the
>> builtin.
>
> Hmm, I guess I need to clarify--I wasn't lamenting or trying to imply any
> missing features in vi/vim or Emacs, but rather trying to respond to others
> who seemed to believe such features didn't exist in many GUI editors.
>
>

-- 

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

#186339

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 02/09/17 17:46, davidson@freevolt.org wrote:
> I somehow doubt that you yourself find Emacs or Vim "difficult to
> use", or believe their design is "arcane". (Of course, I might well be
> mistaken. I'm only guessing.)

I use GNU Emacs. I am being honest when I say that it is difficult to
use and arcane (obviously according to my perception). I use it because
of the configurability and because I use some extensions that are
specific for Emacs (mainly SLIME and HOL mode).

The reason I find Emacs difficult is that for any non-trivial action you
want to perform, you have to read the documentation and *memorize* the
key bindings or command names. Nearly all modern editors make obvious
how to use them through the GUI icons. Emacs does this to a very limited
extent.

Also Emacs requires significant customization. Certainly it *works* “out
of the box” but it is not comfortable to use in that condition. For
example: If I had not read the Emacs wiki I would still be switching
buffers and finding files the old way (C-x b and then type the name of
the buffer), which is extremely tedious. If I had not read the manual, I
would hardly have figured the command “delete-trailing-whitespace”,
which I use often.

> When, many years later, I developed a greater interest in computers, I
> was happy to discover that
> 
>   1. I hadn't been taught only how to ride a tricycle, but had been
>   riding a full-fledged bicycle all along, and
> 
>   2. I would never need to learn to use another text-editor again, if
>   I didn't want to do so.

Assuming that people in the OP's library is representative of the
general population, then most people in that library will never “develop
a greater interest in computers” like you and me. Run-of-the-mill users
do not care if software is very powerful, configurable, reliable, or
other technical merits. They want something that is so simple to use
that they will never need to even glance at the manual. Microsoft and
Apple deliver that and that is why they have had so much commercial success.

-- 
Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web