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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#186657 — Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Saturday, September 09, 2017 10:53:29 PM Nick Boyce wrote:
> AFAIK the 'Web Content' process was introduced by Mozilla when Firefox
> switched to a multi-process model for the browser binary - you may have
> seen people moaning about it: Mozilla calls it 'electrolysis/e10s' and it
> delivers such things as "only one tab will crash, rather than the whole
> browser".  

Thanks very much for this informative response--you even provided the date / 
revision number of the change!

So, I'm now reading up on electrolysis--hadn't seen / heard anything about it 
before now.  The first thing I started to read (still more tabs open to skim / 
read) indicates that the first iterations of e10s just put all the web content 
in one process, but maybe future ones (maybe even by now), maybe each tab will 
be a separate process, which is the point at which, at least usually, one 
crashed tab will not bring down the entire browser.

> I noticed the new process for the first time within the last
> month but wasn't sure how long it had been there ... I was trying to find
> out where all my RAM was going, and the sight of it made my blood run cold
> till I found out what it was.  

I guess I haven't looked at top since something like August 21, thus hadn't 
noticed the change--not looking at top in that time is a good thing, because 
it implies I had no problems that made me look at top ;-)

> I believe the ESR release channel gained
> the multiprocess feature with the change from release 45.x.y to release
> 52.x.y (Debian tracks the ESR channel), and my Wheezy systems received
> FF52.2.0 on 21st.August.
 
Thanks again!

OH, and for pointing out that "Web Content" is a process--I should have 
recognized that, but did not till I read your reply.  ;-)  (I guess, at first, 
I thought it was just some magical thing that magically separated Firefox's 
memory use into two parts, one that just reflected the content (well, it is 
that, but by virture of being a separate process).

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

#186646

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:13:31PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:24:11 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 16:19:03 +1000
> > Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> writes:
> > > 
> > > > I don't want to provoke any religious war here, and sorry if I offend
> > > > anybody, but:
> > > 
> > > That doesn't alter the fact that you've disparaged programs in terms
> > > that state an absolute problem inherent to the program. This is not
> > > helpful, because it implies that people who choose those programs are
> > > wrong and should be disparaged themselves.
> > 
> > I do disparage software when it seems ungood, but there is no implication from me that people who use that software are in any way to be disparaged - there may be many reasons why they're using that software, and my (possibly mistaken) opinion may even help them realise they have choices they didn't know about.  We all have to start learning somewhere - and it never ends.
> > 
> > > 
> > > For example:
> > > 
> > > > emacs is ridiculously heavy-weight
> > > 
> > > That's an absolute statement of objective fact. 
> > 
> > I realise I should have scattered IM(H)Os all through my email, so lets start now: IMO it *is* an objective fact.  emacs is *huge* (please don't ask me for numbers) and cumbersome and overengineered if what you want is a lightweight lean fast straightforward text editor (and I usually do).
> 
> No, the ridiculous thing here is the contradiction:
> "IMO it *is* an objective fact",
> and it's immediately followed by a circular argument.
> 
> Now, it's arguable that emacs is large compared with many other
> editors. However, it contains a lot of functionality, and that means
> lots of code. But just how important is the volume of code that's
> available when you're actually editing a file?
> 
> I'm typing on a i386 laptop with 500MB of memory. Editing a 25MB
> file, the memory reported by top is
> emacs 15%
> nano 7.5%
> 
> Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search.
> That's currently reading
> firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28%
> 
> By way of contrast, if I boot up the machine, start X (using the
> fvwm window manager) and bring up the wunderground weather forecast
> on opera (far faster than using firefox), the machine uses all
> 500MB of memory and 300MB of the 1GB swap. As you can imagine,
> it's not quick.
> 
> So, with respect to this laptop, the size of emacs is irrelevant.

Interesting stats.

I've heard a few times that Eclipse is a great editor for programmers
including newbie programmers, and that "it only needs about a Gig of
RAM and you're good to go".

"You know, Java an' all..."

:)

Emacs is positively tiny in comparison, yet also "more advanced" in
various ways - although Eclipse certainly has its "gui" fortes.


> > I remember an operating system whose response to commands was
> > only ever 'OK' or 'ER' .... I don't like to tell you what I
> > thought about that, but some people liked it because it didn't
> > waste their time with verbiage.
> 
> OK would be rather verbose for Unix.

:D

That's almost cheeky response, but actually true - run a command and
all you get is "an 8-bit integer result, which you have to interpret
somehow, possibly ok, possibly some error, but depends on the
program" :)

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

#186502

>>>>> "NB" == Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> writes:

NB> I don't want to provoke any religious war here, and sorry if I
NB> offend anybody, but: emacs is ridiculously heavy-weight,

Indeed is larger than any other editor, but AFAIK is the only
editor exposing the language it is implemented in.

NB> and I can
NB> never remember whether exit is Ctrl_C Ctrl_X or Ctrl_X Ctrl_C (yes
NB> practice would help)

The problem is in the documentation, mostly the users that do not
read the tutorial or disable the standard message in the *scratch*
buffer.  But also in the documentation that does not explain how the
user interface works.

The tutorial tells you which key combination use to do certain things,
in line 143 tells you:

"Notice the parallel between C-f and C-b on the one hand, and M-f and
M-b on the other hand.  Very often Meta characters are used for
operations related to the units defined by language (words, sentences,
paragraphs), while Control characters operate on basic units that are
independent of what you are editing (characters, lines, etc)."

But it does not tell you that commands are assigned to keyboard
following the "the most useful command gets the quickest activation
way" sorting.

So editing command come with Meta or Control, less common commands
require a C-x issued first, user defined less common command have the
"C-c" prefix almost reserved to them, scarcely used command must be
invoked by name after issuing M-x.

A conservative approach meant to have compatibility with most
environment. But it does not prevent you to use a more "space cadet
keyboard" like approach and use Super and Meta.

Indeed Emacs is large and complex. Indeed Emacs is a bit initiatory,
the church of Emacs is not all this joke - or maybe is even more a
joke for the same reason. You have to understand by yourself that
every time you press a key you invoke a parameter-less function, even
when you type a character. On the other hand, the help system - once
you learn to use it - is there to tell you which funcion is bound to a
certain key combination, show its documentation and, if you want,
takes you to the source code of the function.

But Emacs offer this to a beginner: extensibility, customization (you
could need no coding for many things) and the option to turn a boring
task into the intellectually interesting "writing the snippet of code
that does the boring task".

-- 
 /\           ___                                    Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____               African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico            meaning "I can
\/                 coltivatore diretto di software       not install
     già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...                Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO

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

#186504

I use emacs (mostly for programming and writing documentation and
LaTeX) and vim(mostly when I edit configuration files or very large
text files).

Some alternatives which (some of them may have been mentioned in this thread):

Atom - a fairly new and versatile one as far as I know
PyCharm (not a native Debian Package) but very nice to debug Python
with. The community edition is free.
Bluefish (especially when editing html files).

Regards
Johann

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

#186527

Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> writes:

> Some alternatives which (some of them may have been mentioned in this
> thread):
>
> Atom - a fairly new and versatile one as far as I know
> PyCharm (not a native Debian Package) but very nice to debug Python
> with. The community edition is free.
> Bluefish (especially when editing html files).

Atom is free. It has an enormous dependency tree, so not yet in Debian.

Bluefish is free. It is in Debian for a long time now.

PyCharm is not free. Its community edition is zero-cost, though still
not free.

-- 
 \        “That's the essence of science: Ask an impertinent question, |
  `\            and you're on the way to the pertinent answer.” —Jacob |
_o__)                             Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 |
Ben Finney

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

#186537

On 09/06/2017 11:13 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Some alternatives which (some of them may have been mentioned in this
>> thread):
>>
>> Atom - a fairly new and versatile one as far as I know
>> PyCharm (not a native Debian Package) but very nice to debug Python
>> with. The community edition is free.
>> Bluefish (especially when editing html files).
>
> Atom is free. It has an enormous dependency tree, so not yet in Debian.
>
> Bluefish is free. It is in Debian for a long time now.
>
> PyCharm is not free. Its community edition is zero-cost, though still
> not free.
>
There are so many entries on this thread that I might be repeating some 
one. If so, I apologize. That said, I think the editor you use is 
dependent on the type of programming you are doing. First Emacs is a 
barrel of snakes as for as I am concerned. Hard core programmers may 
like it but us light weight programmers don't. I have had good luck with 
Kate, Bluefish, Spyder and Code::Block. Each has its good and bad points 
and the points shift depending whether you are doing C / C++, Fortran or 
a scripting language like python. The best choice is usually an 
Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for the particular language you 
are using. I hope this is helpful.

Good Luck

Gary R.

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

#186623

I'm dropping in late to say that running 'vimtutor' in a 
terminal is an easy way to interactively get to know how vim
works.

-- 
Joel Roth
  

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

#186631

On 2017-09-09, Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm dropping in late to say that running 'vimtutor' in a 
> terminal is an easy way to interactively get to know how vim
> works.
>

I use vim on a very rudimentary level, and on that very rudimentary
level it is easy. 'i' start writing; esc ":w" save that puppy.

I have a rudimentary (yes, I'm quite rudimentary) LaTex template that I
employ because I'm required to submit things in either rtf, doc, or pdf (I
use latex2rtf when I'm done).

Remember the typewriter? I'm sure you do. I recall Norman Mailer saying
once that he would hesitate to revise his work (written in long-hand,
then given to his secretary to be typed on the period's mechanical or
electromechanical device) more than a couple of times due to the tedium
it meant for the poor woman. I suppose now with more modern technology he
could keep working past that generously self-imposed limit.

But it's never finished, a creation--that's why the fundamentalists are
wrong. The world and its principles were never written in stone; they
are a work-in-progress. Halleluiah.

However we mortals must stop somewhere or we'd never complete anything. 

David Foster Wallace once remarked that he always wrote in long-hand
first (prior to word processing it) because he didn't want to blurt
things out. The pen imposes deliberation.

I'm always delighted to enter this forum and see you people devoting so
much of your energy to the big questions in life (although someone did
say the medium was the message).

-- 
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." Groucho

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web