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

#186410

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:42:20AM +1200, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> On 03/09/17 06:21, Tom Browder wrote:
> > I would especially appreciate other ideas for programming editors for
> > novice programmers.
> 
> I use and recommend geany. And Eclipse.

+1 geany

I use geany for note taking, and when I want to print out text files
"nicely". I've also installed geany for others (3+ years happy
campers). Perfect for novice programmers.

However for Java programming, I always recommend Eclipse - as long as
you've got >= 1GiB RAM, Eclipse is fine for novices, the bees knees
for Java GUI IDEs, -and- has C and C++ support these days (besides a
zillion other languages).

I also have Eclipse installed, but for day to day coding I actually
prefer vim for two main reasons:

1) The "extreme lightweight" feel of vim (and geany for that matter
   which I alias to "n" for "n"otepad (I've changed "notepad"s a few
   times over the years, and keep the same alias of course...)) -
   opening a file always seems close to instantaneous.

2) The mindset, and consequent feeling engendered within me, from cmd
   line based edit-compile-run cycle development.

The only place I still intend to personally use Eclipse is either
developing a plugin for others to use, or developing actual GUI front
ends to software I've written (I'm confident one or both of these
will happen one day :)

Good luck,

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

#186440

On 2017-09-02 Tom Browder wrote:

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

Jed, http://www.jedsoft.org/jed/, is highly recommendable!

  Morten
  

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

#186486

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> 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.
>

Great initiative. May I know the location of this library?

> 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.
>

Two things:
1) Please make it "very easy" to request and install new packages. No
matter what set of packages are installed at first, there will be a
few packages that a few users would like to see. So putting a big fat
notice as to how to get new software installed would go a long way.

2) Please install python3 and the relevant libraries such as numpy, pandas etc.,

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

I recommend vim and zim. The former is great for writing code and the
latter is great for planning and organization.

-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

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

#186491

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 18:21:07 +0000
Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:

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

If you really want to have a *simple* non-GUI (i.e. terminal) screen-mode editor available that novice programmers who are refugee users from Windows might find comfortable, you could consider 'joe' ("Joe's Own Editor" in classic Un*x-world recursive acronym naming style), which provides basically a Wordstar control-key driven modeless editing experience.  Yes, I did say "Wordstar" ... you may need to get off my lawn.

https://packages.debian.org/stretch/joe
http://joe-editor.sourceforge.net/

I don't like to confess to my august and more sophisticated colleagues here how much code I've written using joe - albeit in the simpler languages (a variety of Bash scripts, Perl, C, HTML and similar). There is some syntax highlighting, but no code-completion or compiler integration or the other trinkets that come with proper IDEs.  It is however, small, fast and reliable - it hasn't had a new feature in *years* because for it's intended use-cases it's *feature-complete* !

It's one of the first things I install on any Linux or *BSD system.

I don't want to provoke any religious war here, and sorry if I offend anybody, but: emacs is ridiculously heavy-weight, and I can never remember whether exit is Ctrl_C Ctrl_X or Ctrl_X Ctrl_C (yes practice would help) - and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's as user-friendly as a cornered rat ... novices usually remember their first time trying to find out how to exit with a genuine shudder.  A frequent vi moment for those familiar with modeless editors is to enter 'insert mode' (when you figure out how), type some text, and then try to use the arrow keys to move to a different line without remembering to first exit insert mode - depending on vi version, terminal emulation, Un*x flavour, phase of the Moon etc., the effect of this is that a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes removing again.  Ugh.

(Yes, I do use more sophisticated GUI IDEs for anything serious, but that's not what OP asked for.  Also, I do realise vim is much better than vi.)

Cheers,
Nick
-- 
Never FDISK after midnight.

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

#186492 — Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]

On 06.09.17 05:31, Nick Boyce wrote:
> I don't like to confess to my august and more sophisticated colleagues
> here how much code I've written using joe - albeit in the simpler
> languages (a variety of Bash scripts, Perl, C, HTML and similar).
> There is some syntax highlighting, but no code-completion or compiler
> integration or the other trinkets that come with proper IDEs.  It is
> however, small, fast and reliable - it hasn't had a new feature in
> *years* because for it's intended use-cases it's *feature-complete* !
> 
> It's one of the first things I install on any Linux or *BSD system.

In my decades of leading software teams, one thing I did not do is ask
"What editor do you use?", even in employment interviews. In my
experience, a programmer is most productive using the editor with which
he's most proficient. End of story.

> ... and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's
> as user-friendly as a cornered rat ... novices usually remember their
> first time trying to find out how to exit with a genuine shudder.

On the three occasions I've had to extract a marsupial possum from our
chimney (they're like a cat on steroids), I've armed myself with thick
leather gloves and grim determination. For vim, a cheat-sheet suffices,
and :help xxxx" or google do explain.

> A frequent vi moment for those familiar with modeless editors is to
> enter 'insert mode' (when you figure out how), type some text, and
> then try to use the arrow keys to move to a different line without
> remembering to first exit insert mode - depending on vi version,
> terminal emulation, Un*x flavour, phase of the Moon etc., the effect
> of this is that a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered
> instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes
> removing again.  Ugh.

That's an xterm error, as the arrows simply produce motion even in
Insert-mode, if that's properly set up.

But Vim's Insert-mode/Normal-mode modality still requires user
awareness, either through memory or looking at the status line, with a
"set showmode" in ~/.vimrc - unless you also add something like:

" These days I expect to be out of insert mode, after a vertical move:
inoremap <Up> ^[<Up>
inoremap <Down> ^[<Down>

(The ^[ is <Escape>, entered as <Control-V><Escape> in insert mode.)

Now the Insert-mode exit is automated, so long as you use the arrow keys
for moves. (If you use hjkl for speed, then you're not a novice, by
definition.) I've left <Left> and <Right>, so I stay in Insert-mode
while on the line. It works for me, but you could remap them too.

To avoid the need to glance to the bottom of the window to check mode, I
also add:

" Cursor Appearance and behaviour:
" (Insert_Mode == Green, Normal_Mode == Red)
if &term =~ "xterm"
   let &t_SI = "\<Esc>]12;yellow\x7"
   let &t_EI = "\<Esc>]12;green\x7"
endif

So the cursor itself is a reminder. (I haven't yet found a way to have
it make coffee though, so that I always have my eyes open.)
(Colours chosen for yellow text on darkslategrey background, set in the
xterm. YTMV)

> (Yes, I do use more sophisticated GUI IDEs for anything serious, but
> that's not what OP asked for.  Also, I do realise vim is much better
> than vi.)

Even without integration in an editor, in *nix you can Control-Z out to
the command line, run make, and fg back in. I too would use whatever
editor my fingers remember.

Erik

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

#186597 — Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:08:15 +1000
Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:

> On 06.09.17 05:31, Nick Boyce wrote:
[...]
> > [Joe is] one of the first things I install on any Linux
> > or *BSD system.
> 
> In my decades of leading software teams, one thing I did not do is ask
> "What editor do you use?", even in employment interviews. In my
> experience, a programmer is most productive using the editor with which
> he's most proficient. 

You're absolutely right.  I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time.  Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached.  I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys.  Each to their own.

It's interesting how programmers who arrived at Unix via VMS, and programmers who came from the mainframe world, often have correspondingly different software tastes.

> > ... and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's
> > as user-friendly as a cornered rat
> 
> On the three occasions I've had to extract a marsupial possum from our
> chimney (they're like a cat on steroids), I've armed myself with thick
> leather gloves and grim determination. 

:)

> For vim, a cheat-sheet suffices,
> and :help xxxx" or google do explain.

On DEC Ultrix, Digital Unix (OSF/1 .. Tru64) and on HPUX there is no vim, and the DEC/HP salesmen have delivered no cheet sheets with the beasts, and in vi the F1 key does not summon any help, and from insert mode there is no help command, and in 1995 google has not yet been invented.  The unskilled novice smokes a cigarette (it's 1995) to calm down, and gravitates to a different editor ....

> > ... a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered
> > instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes
> > removing again.  Ugh.
> 
> That's an xterm error, as the arrows simply produce motion even in
> Insert-mode, if that's properly set up.

Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory.  Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine.  Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault.  The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances.  As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait.  I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors).

> ... unless you also add something like:
> 
> " These days I expect to be out of insert mode, after a vertical move:
> inoremap <Up> ^[<Up>
> inoremap <Down> ^[<Down>

That's great to have - thanks for that (seriously), along with the other .vimrc tweaks you gave.  I realise much can be improved by tweaking .vimrc, as it can be with .muttrc, .bashrc and the like.  This is why power users often carry their own personal versions of these rc files with them wherever they roam ... and old greybeards sometimes dispense rc nuggets to neophytes at moments of crisis.

Cheers
Nick
-- 
Never FDISK after midnight.

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

#186600 — Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]

If you are torn between emacs and vi, it's probably because you haven't 
run eval-mode inside emacs.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Nick Boyce wrote:

> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:19:49
> From: Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]
> Resent-Date: Fri,  8 Sep 2017 02:18:59 +0000 (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:08:15 +1000
> Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> On 06.09.17 05:31, Nick Boyce wrote:
> [...]
>>> [Joe is] one of the first things I install on any Linux
>>> or *BSD system.
>>
>> In my decades of leading software teams, one thing I did not do is ask
>> "What editor do you use?", even in employment interviews. In my
>> experience, a programmer is most productive using the editor with which
>> he's most proficient.
>
> You're absolutely right.  I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time.  Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached.  I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys.  Each to their own.
>
> It's interesting how programmers who arrived at Unix via VMS, and programmers who came from the mainframe world, often have correspondingly different software tastes.
>
>>> ... and vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's
>>> as user-friendly as a cornered rat
>>
>> On the three occasions I've had to extract a marsupial possum from our
>> chimney (they're like a cat on steroids), I've armed myself with thick
>> leather gloves and grim determination.
>
> :)
>
>> For vim, a cheat-sheet suffices,
>> and :help xxxx" or google do explain.
>
> On DEC Ultrix, Digital Unix (OSF/1 .. Tru64) and on HPUX there is no vim, and the DEC/HP salesmen have delivered no cheet sheets with the beasts, and in vi the F1 key does not summon any help, and from insert mode there is no help command, and in 1995 google has not yet been invented.  The unskilled novice smokes a cigarette (it's 1995) to calm down, and gravitates to a different editor ....
>
>>> ... a whole bunch of weird character sequences get entered
>>> instead of cursor control, which you then spend the next 10 minutes
>>> removing again.  Ugh.
>>
>> That's an xterm error, as the arrows simply produce motion even in
>> Insert-mode, if that's properly set up.
>
> Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory.  Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine.  Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault.  The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances.  As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait.  I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors).
>
>> ... unless you also add something like:
>>
>> " These days I expect to be out of insert mode, after a vertical move:
>> inoremap <Up> ^[<Up>
>> inoremap <Down> ^[<Down>
>
> That's great to have - thanks for that (seriously), along with the other .vimrc tweaks you gave.  I realise much can be improved by tweaking .vimrc, as it can be with .muttrc, .bashrc and the like.  This is why power users often carry their own personal versions of these rc files with them wherever they roam ... and old greybeards sometimes dispense rc nuggets to neophytes at moments of crisis.
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>

-- 

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

#186616 — Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]

On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:19:49 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote:
> You're absolutely right.  I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time.  Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached.  I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys.  Each to their own.

> Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory.  Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine.  Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault.  The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances.  As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait.  I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors).

Just to point out there's a connection between these two paragraphs.
You shouldn't have to wait even a second for emacs to start if you
"live" in it, ie use the server-start command and keep a running
instance open. Then, instead of emacs, invoking emacsclient from the
shell and applications will be virtually instant.

Cheers,
David.

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

#186647 — Re: Editor survival [Was: Recommended editor for novice programmers?]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:17:50PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 03:19:49 (+0100), Nick Boyce wrote:
> > You're absolutely right.  I have sat next to seasoned vi users watching in awe as their fingers flew entering weird totally non-intuitive commands (to me) and achieving great edits in next to no time.  Other colleagues lived inside emacs all day long, using it as a sort of OS with an editor attached.  I used other editors to achieve the same goals, quite possibly taking more real time than the vi guys.  Each to their own.
> 
> > Agreed .. or whatever terminal (emulation) you're actually using - in my case very often a real VT220/320/420, attached to a VMS, then TELNETed to a Un*x, where the available /etc/termcap|terminfo may or may not have been well crafted back at the factory.  Sometimes an ICL mainframe VDU connected via an obscure 3rd-party emulation converter box to a DEC machine.  Latterly it would be some 3rd-party terminal emulator on Windows 3.1/95. I still say ugh, though it may well not be vi's fault.  The fact is that miraculously 'joe' seemed to be much more resilient and usable in these circumstances.  As did emacs .. if you could afford to wait.  I like an editor to appear within 1 second of me calling it (which rules out most GUI editors).
> 
> Just to point out there's a connection between these two paragraphs.
> You shouldn't have to wait even a second for emacs to start if you
> "live" in it, ie use the server-start command and keep a running
> instance open. Then, instead of emacs, invoking emacsclient from the
> shell and applications will be virtually instant.

Java has the same "sort of" thing in Nailgun - "insanely fast Java" -
the same concept, but for Java, where the ng client just sends a
message to a running Java instance (running ng server), to make it
easy to launch or do whatever you want in Java - I assume (but don't
know) that Eclipse has something like this built in (just like
Firefox).

Cheers,

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

#186493

Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> writes:

> I don't like to confess to my august and more sophisticated colleagues
> here how much code I've written using joe - albeit in the simpler
> languages (a variety of Bash scripts, Perl, C, HTML and similar).

Joe is a fine text editor licensed as free software. I say that as
someone who has decided I don't like to use it myself.

To paraphrase someone else paraphrasing Voltaire: I may disagree with
your choice of text editor, but I will defend to the death your right to
use it.

So, go ahead and admit how much you like Joe and how much code it has
allowed you to write. If anyone has a problem with your usage of Joe for
programming, they have me to answer to :-)


Here's where I need to object:

> 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.

For example:

> emacs is ridiculously heavy-weight

That's an absolute statement of objective fact. Do you think it is true
for everyone? You have expressed it as though you do.

You are, in this expression, saying that people who use Emacs deserve
ridicule because Emacs is so obviously heavy-weight they should be
embarrassed to use it. That's needlessly hostile.

You can, instead, say what *you don't like* about the program:

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

That's great! Thank you for stating your position here in terms of what
you are and are not able to do. This doesn't judge anyone else as
inferior.

> vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's as user-friendly as
> a cornered rat ... novices usually remember their first time trying to
> find out how to exit with a genuine shudder.

This gets too far into stating objective fact. How do you know the
“usual” experience of novice Vi users, have you surveyed a statistically
powerful sample?


I appreciate that it can be fun to rant about difficulties using
programs, and Emacs and Vi are favourite topics of this sort. We can,
and should, do so without also dismissing other people as inferior.

When you acknowledge the possibility of provoking offense, it is on your
shoulders to either express yourself in ways that *don't* implicitly
disparage people with different preferences.

Either that, or don't provoke at all :-)

Have fun, everyone, using whatever text editors make your life better.

-- 
 \       “My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves |
  `\              to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my |
_o__)                   aspirations.“ —Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860-09-23 |
Ben Finney

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

#186497

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:19:03PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

[...]

> To paraphrase someone else paraphrasing Voltaire: I may disagree with
> your choice of text editor, but I will defend to the death your right to
> use it.

There. This is the one to frame and hang on the Debian's Club House wall :-)

Thanks, Ben!

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlmvruQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbM8ACfeIbo02z+ernKNfaqbCx/po/A
+NIAn3AqbscuDyFJLVGz1D98DATwsc9E
=5bNZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#186508

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 04:16:36 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:19:03PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > To paraphrase someone else paraphrasing Voltaire: I may disagree
> > with your choice of text editor, but I will defend to the death your
> > right to use it.
>
> There. This is the one to frame and hang on the Debian's Club House
> wall :-)
>
> Thanks, Ben!
>
> Cheers
> -- tomás

Another +1 from here.

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]

#186509

>>>>> "GH" == Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> writes:

GH> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 04:16:36 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:19:03PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> > To paraphrase someone else paraphrasing Voltaire: I may disagree
>> > with your choice of text editor, but I will defend to the death
>> your > right to use it.
>> 
>> There. This is the one to frame and hang on the Debian's Club House
>> wall :-)
>> 
>> Thanks, Ben!
>> 
>> Cheers -- tomás

GH> Another +1 from here.

Add another one.

<😇>
But convert to the true one editor, infidels :) :) :) :) :) :) :) !
</😇>

-- 
 /\           ___                                    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]

#186516

On 09/06/2017 08:07 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
[snip]
> <😇>
> But convert to the true one editor, infidels :) :) :) :) :) :) :) !
> </😇>
>

You did mean TECO didn't you?

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

#186598

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).  The wags didn't coin the joke about the name deriving from Eventually Mallocs All Computer System for nothing :)

> Do you think it is true for everyone? You have
> expressed it as though you do.

I don't think it *bothers* everyone, no.  People's use-cases differ.

> You are, in this expression, saying that people who 
> use Emacs deserve ridicule

Not in the slightest - it's horses for courses.  I'm stating *my* opinion about the software, and nothing about its users at all.

[...] 
> > vi's power makes light work of many tasks but it's as user-friendly as
> > a cornered rat ... novices usually remember their first time trying to
> > find out how to exit with a genuine shudder.
> 
> This gets too far into stating objective fact. How do you know the
> "usual" experience of novice Vi users, have you surveyed a statistically
> powerful sample?

No doubt my sample isn't an industry-wide statistically valid sample, but it's based on many many editor conversations with many programmer colleagues in the course of working for a number of large companies.  IME, programmers who arrive in the Unix world from other system types are often appalled at the primitive state of the user interface of many of the tools Unix provides (sendmail ...). Note that this is not to decry the many wonders of Unix, or more particularly Linux (which is a far superior animal to all of the commercial Unixen with which I have worked).

> I appreciate that it can be fun to rant about difficulties using
> programs, and Emacs and Vi are favourite topics of this sort. 

It sure is :)

> We can, and should, do so without also dismissing 
> other people as inferior.

Once again, and to emphasise: I said (and intended) nothing about the users of any software.

> When you acknowledge the possibility of provoking offense, 
> it is on your shoulders to either express yourself in ways
> that *don't* implicitly disparage people with different 
> preferences.

I'll allow that I should have prefixed everything I said with IMO.  There's no way to criticise an editor which doesn't risk offending some fans of said editor - the preemptive apology is the best I can do to avert that.  Luckily, most conversations about software quality that I've had with colleagues have been purely on a technical basis and have remained dispassionate, even when using metaphors like 'cornered rat'.  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.

Cheers
Nick
-- 
Never FDISK after midnight.

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

#186617

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.

> 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.

Cheers,
David.

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

#186619 — top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote:
> Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search.
> That's currently reading
> firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28%

Hmm, do you have a version of top (or something else) which reports the use of 
memory for web content?  I don't see that in top on Wheezy., but I'd like to 
get that number.

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

#186622 — Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote:
> > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search.
> > That's currently reading
> > firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28%
> 
> Hmm, do you have a version of top (or something else) which reports the use of 
> memory for web content?  I don't see that in top on Wheezy., but I'd like to 
> get that number.

I don't have any browsers on my wheezy systems, but is it possible
that wheezy calls it plugin-container? That is what ps calls it in
jessie, but I used top's value and terminology.

Another name to check out might be xul-runner which is where
plugin-container used to live.

Cheers,
David.

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

#186628 — Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Friday, September 08, 2017 07:59:40 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote:
> > > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search.
> > > That's currently reading
> > > firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28%
> > 
> > Hmm, do you have a version of top (or something else) which reports the
> > use of memory for web content?  I don't see that in top on Wheezy., but
> > I'd like to get that number.
> 
> I don't have any browsers on my wheezy systems, but is it possible
> that wheezy calls it plugin-container? That is what ps calls it in
> jessie, but I used top's value and terminology.
> 
> Another name to check out might be xul-runner which is where
> plugin-container used to live.

David,

Thanks  very much for your reply!

Son of a gun, this morning I looked at top and now there is a task named "Web 
Content".  That must have been part of a (recent) "security" update ;-)

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

#186645 — Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 07:39:58 -0400
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 08, 2017 07:59:40 PM David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote:
> > > > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search.
> > > > That's currently reading
> > > > firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28%
> > > 
> > > Hmm, do you have a version of top (or something else) which reports the
> > > use of memory for web content?  I don't see that in top on Wheezy., but
> > > I'd like to get that number.
[snip]
> 
> Son of a gun, this morning I looked at top and now there is a task named "Web 
> Content".  That must have been part of a (recent) "security" update ;-)

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".  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 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.

Nick
-- 
Never FDISK after midnight.

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

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

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

csiph-web