SonOfLilit wrote:
I for one don’t like jEdit.
Too heavy.
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
I tried, but couldn’t get used to the meta-something commands.
I know how to quit from emacs and vim though - without loosing changes.
But SciTE and jEdit fit my needs better.
Stefan
Axel wrote:
I’m using jEdit as editor when I need to look at large classes. Normally
I’m using SciTE.I’m curious: Why normally SciTE, not jEdit?
(I don’t know SciTE, I use jEdit… , Windows.)
Because it is faster than jEdit. And available on Linux as well (finally
I got jEdit installed on Ubuntu, but I do not remember how).
And normally my class files are short - so I do not need the structure
browser.
Stefan
On 3/19/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
Martin DeMello wrote:
Mondrian [http://www.mondrian-ide.com/] looks pretty good. I don’t
know why it’s not more popular.martin
Is it a live project? I looked at both Mondrian and FreeRide a while
back. They looked similar, but FreeRide looked more active, and it was
in Gentoo’s Portage tree.
I look at the page every now and then, and there usually seems to be
progress. Seems like a nice, lightweight and polished IDE, though not
something I’d use due to its lack of a vim part 
martin
Chad P. wrote:
Vim?
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned the
old “vi”, you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that’s been
tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin XEmacs have
a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux, Windows, Macs,
Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that matter, though, so
does Vim’s “gvim” variant. (Notepad, mouse, Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris
and probably BSD).
Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost any
programmer can walk up to and use. There are some definitely distinctive
and breakthrough concepts in editors for programmers, though. Check out
Leo for another way to do it.
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
“M. Edward (Ed) Borasky” [email protected] writes:
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned
the old “vi”, you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that’s
been tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin
XEmacs have a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux,
Windows, Macs, Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that
matter, though, so does Vim’s “gvim” variant. (Notepad, mouse,
Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris and probably BSD).Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost
any programmer can walk up to and use.
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical “gvim” variant.
So I don’t see convergence.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:06:22AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Vim?
Vim is about as heavy as Emacs these days, although if you learned the
old “vi”, you can for the most part ignore all the stuff that’s been
tacked on. For that matter, both Emacs and its forked cousin XEmacs have
a Notepad-like mouse interface and will run on Linux, Windows, Macs,
Solaris and probably BSD variants as well. For that matter, though, so
does Vim’s “gvim” variant. (Notepad, mouse, Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris
and probably BSD).
I beg to differ. Installed size for Vim as reported by APT: 1408 bytes.
Installed size for GNU Emacs as reported by APT: 5924 bytes. Last I
checked, including all dependencies, Emacs took up more than 80MB of
drive space, and Vim less than 20MB. It looks to me like Vim is getting
about one fifth as heavy as Emacs these days. I also tend to be less
prone to RSI when I’m not using Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift.
If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they’re in the
same realm of “heavy”.
By the way, yes – XEmacs will run on FreeBSD, as does GVim (or however
the official capitalization goes).
If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they’re in the
same realm of “heavy”.
I disagree this in any way matters on today’s CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
David V.
Too Lazy to quote ALL relevant bits of the thread.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:50:06AM +0900, David K. wrote:
Editors, IDEs, etc. seem to be converging to something that almost
any programmer can walk up to and use.Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical “gvim” variant.So I don’t see convergence.
Good point.
I think that many IDEs are converging on a single design philosophy, to
some extent – with outliers that buck the trends of course (both good
and bad examples). Other code editing tools, however, are not
converging, either with IDEs or each other.
On 3/20/07, David K. [email protected] wrote:
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical “gvim” variant.
One gvim user standing up and being counted.
m.
Chad P. [email protected] writes:
I disagree that today’s CPU and RAM stats obviate the need for slimmer
tools sometimes. For instance, I’m composing this email using mutt+Vim
over an SSH connection. While I’m only two rooms away from the system
where I’m accessing email, I have also been known to use the same means
of dealing with email from miles away, over the Internet. Under such
circumstances, at a bandwidth rate of less than 1Mbps, the “weight” of
the application is definitely of interest to me.
That’s what “tramp” is for. It uses a shell connection on a tty (ssh,
sudo, su and a number of other possibilities including multihop) in
order to transparently edit files on a different account.
That way, one can use the local Emacs session for working with remote
files (or files from a different account, such as /su::/etc/fstab)
quite cheaply. No editor at all required on the remote site.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:51:31AM +0900, David V. wrote:
If Emacs is what works for you, go for it. Some people like the feature
set of Emacs more than that of Vim. I just disagree that they’re in the
same realm of “heavy”.I disagree this in any way matters on today’s CPU speeds and RAM sizes.
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
I disagree that today’s CPU and RAM stats obviate the need for slimmer
tools sometimes. For instance, I’m composing this email using mutt+Vim
over an SSH connection. While I’m only two rooms away from the system
where I’m accessing email, I have also been known to use the same means
of dealing with email from miles away, over the Internet. Under such
circumstances, at a bandwidth rate of less than 1Mbps, the “weight” of
the application is definitely of interest to me.
Martin DeMello wrote:
On 3/20/07, David K. [email protected] wrote:
Disagree. Only very few Emacs users nowadays use Emacs on a tty, and
only very few vim users use the graphical “gvim” variant.One gvim user standing up and being counted.
m.
gvim is my editor of choice on Windows systems, but I tend to use vim on
Linux and even on Cygwin.
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:10:18AM +0900, David K. wrote:
(Gods I hate the appeal to bloat way of argumentation.)
sudo, su and a number of other possibilities including multihop) in
order to transparently edit files on a different account.That way, one can use the local Emacs session for working with remote
files (or files from a different account, such as /su::/etc/fstab)
quite cheaply. No editor at all required on the remote site.
Sometimes, the remote site is the only place one has an appropriate
editor. Haven’t you ever had to access email from someone else’s
computer?
On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, “PythonUsr” [email protected] wrote:
Are there any goodSciTEalternatives that are mainly for Ruby
editing and compiling?
On the Windows platform there is the Zeus IDE:
http://www.zeusedit.com
Zeus has standard IDE features like syntax highlighting,
integrated version control, project/workspace, class
browsing etc, but it will also do smart indenting and
code folding for the Ruby language
And provided you have Ruby WSH installed you can even
write Zeus macros using Ruby 
Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows IDE
On Mar 20, 11:00 am, “JussiJ” [email protected] wrote:
And provided you have Ruby WSH installed you can even
writeZeusmacros using Ruby
This link describes how to configure Windows Ruby WSH:
Writing Zeus Macros in Ruby - Zeus IDE
Jussi Jumppanen
Author:Zeus for Windows IDE
On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:10 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
That’s called TextMate. 
James Edward G. II
Perhaps. Although I own a mac, I don’t have spare $40 and do find
emacs nice enough to not switch.
If I’ll start doing Ruby full time (I seem to be on a path to starting
a startup and still nothing is decided about what we will do, not to
speak of tech decisions, so that is reasonable) I would owe myself to
at least try it out, but now it’s really not worth $40 for me.
Aur
James Edward G. II wrote:
On Mar 19, 2007, at 4:10 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
How about emacs with some use-me-without-freaky-shortcuts mode?
That’s called TextMate.
James Edward G. II
Or XEmacs
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs