b. What do I change to make that editing 1 step instead of 2 steps?
b. What do I change to make that editing 1 step instead of 2 steps?
about:config
view_source.editor.external true
view_source.editor.path C:\Windows\System32\notepad.exe
In Firefox press <CTRL>-U to start the editor with the html source
3. That works for notepad, but it does NOT work for gvim....
C:\> where gvim
C:\Windows\gvim.bat
That fails.
This information should be generally useful to everyone because it allows them to maintain a list of URLs that they can easily edit at any time.
If it takes 2 steps to do something; that's twice as much as it should;
Hence, I'm trying to reduce the following interaction to a single step.
STEP 1: Win+R > gvine
STEP 2: Click on the backgrounded icon on the taskbar
What I need to know, in order to reduce those two steps to one is... Why
does Windows edit this file in the background (not foreground)?
Note: It comes up in one step if I used the default editor, but I don't
want to use Firefox as the default editor (unless Firefox has an editor?).
Here's the situation... (which I would think others would also have)...
This information should be generally useful to everyone because it allows
them to maintain a list of URLs that they can easily edit at any time.
Seamonkey has an html editor.
If it takes 2 steps to do something; that's twice as much as it should;You must be a barrel of fun as a lover and a chef. :)
Hence, I'm trying to reduce the following interaction to a single step.
STEP 1: Win+R > gurl
STEP 2: Click on the backgrounded icon on the taskbar
My approach -- just one option -- is that I have a half dozen
context menu items for all files (HKCR\*) that are like Open with
Notepad, Open with Paint Shop Pro, Open with HxD, etc. So I can
open any file in the program I want with just a right click/click.
In the rare occasions when I need the Run window, it's one
of 4 items on my Start Menu, so there's no need for hotkeys.
If you're going to edit HTML very often it makes sense to find
an HTML-specific editor with syntax highlighting at the very
least. The trouble with generic editors like vim, emacs, notepad++,
etc, is that they're really just text editors that support rudimentary colorcoding for 50 languages. Like a 50-bit screwdriver, they don't
work very well for any particular screw.
I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for non-fixed-width fonts. Really?
That's your favorite editor?
Few people
actually hand-code HTML anymore, but there must still be decent
editors around.
I took a look out of curiosity. At DDG, the whole first
page of results was links to online editors! It seems CoffeeCup Free is
still out there. I never tried it, but it was popular at one time.
The trouble with this kind of thing is that the reviewers don't know the products. One site rated Notepad++ #1, with no HTML-specific functionality, yet with some other editors they complained that there wasn't built-in
FTP.
Another best-of site lists Vim and Atom along with Dreamweaver.
They rated Sublime Text #1 for customizability, even though it, too,
is only a general editor. Putting Dreamweaver on the same list with the others is like listing MSPaint with Photoshop. Only someone who's never edited photos would do that.
You mean, that does not work for your batch file.
But how do you *know* it doesn't work for your batchfile ? Maybe the batchfile runs but it just can't run gvim.exe itself for some reason.
IOW, what did you do to check/test what part works and what part doesn't ?
I do very much agree with you that an HTML editor with regular expressions would be lovely to find but I've never seen such an efficient HTML editor. Have you?
I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for
non-fixed-width fonts. Really?
You want the 'g' in front of Vim for the graphical bells & whistles.
If someone can suggest a good free HTML editor that works on all major platforms which incorporates regular expressions - I'd love to test it.
I do very much agree with you that an HTML editor with regular expressions >> would be lovely to find but I've never seen such an efficient HTML editor. >> Have you?I've never used regexp for anything.
I don't know why I might
use them editing HTML.
addlink.batQ: What link do you want to add?
For HTML, or anything, I want an editor
designed for that specifically.
I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for
non-fixed-width fonts. Really?
You want the 'g' in front of Vim for the graphical bells & whistles.
Yes. I got gvim.
If someone can suggest a good free HTML editor that works on all major
platforms which incorporates regular expressions - I'd love to test it.
It sounds like you're not really editing HTML in the sense of web design, but rather editing your browser bookmarks file?
If that's the case then I
can see why you want only a plain editor.
For those on comp.editors, a huge advantage of Notepad++ shortcuts.xml
macro conversion is that it can convert non-printable characters also!
<!-- comment text -->
<Action type="3" message="1700" wParam="0" lParam="0" sParam="" />
<Action type="3" message="1601" wParam="0" lParam="0"
sParam="&#151;" />
<Action type="3" message="1625" wParam="0" lParam="0" sParam="" />
<Action type="3" message="1602" wParam="0" lParam="0" sParam="&" /> <Action type="3" message="1702" wParam="0" lParam="768" sParam="" />
<Action type="3" message="1701" wParam="0" lParam="1609" sParam="" />
<!-- comment text -->
I have about a dozen of those Notepad++ macros which convert non-printable (or inconsistent) characters to printable (or to consistent) characters
after I've cut and pasted from an HTML page.
Well, how do you convert this template set into something useful?
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>amazon foo bar</A><P> <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>vine foo
bar</A>
If I want to convert that template to, oh, say, "laptop computer", I run: ma ===> mark a
mb ===> mark b
<esc>:'a,'bs/foo/laptop/g ===> from a to b globally replace foo with
laptop <esc>:'a,'bs/bar/pc/g ===> from a to b globally replace bar with pc
What I'd REALLY WANT is the ability to add items to the bookmarks file.
Agreed that you're correct it might work for other batch files.
Thanks for that sound advice.
Here's the gvim.bat file installed during the initial setup process.
I have about a dozen of those Notepad++ macros which convert non-printable >> (or inconsistent) characters to printable (or to consistent) charactersSorry, but I lost you. You're assuming people know that
after I've cut and pasted from an HTML page.
macro code and how it works.
Well, how do you convert this template set into something useful?
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>amazon foo bar</A><P> <A
HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>vine foo
bar</A>
If I want to convert that template to, oh, say, "laptop computer", I run:
ma ===> mark a
mb ===> mark b
<esc>:'a,'bs/foo/laptop/g ===> from a to b globally replace foo with
laptop <esc>:'a,'bs/bar/pc/g ===> from a to b globally replace bar with pc >>
Again, you lost me. I don't see a template. Weren't
we talking about editing HTML?
<A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>amazon foo bar</A><P> <A
HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>vine foo
bar</A>
What I'd REALLY WANT is the ability to add items to the bookmarks file.Yes. That seems to be the confusion. You're not looking to
edit HTML. You're looking to autmoate specific text editing
bm.batWhat is the URL please?
I use VBScript for things like that. BAT files are limited. I
actually keep a lot of VBS files on my Desktop, to do things
like Copy folderA to folderB if files in folderA do not exist in
folderB. Decode base64. Convert unix returns to Windows
returns. Convert a returnlss CSS block to clear lines with
returns. Clean all temp folders. Convert an encoded URL to
a clean one by doing things like replacing %3A%2F%2F to
://. Collect all domains referenced in an HTML file and present
them in a window with an option to add them to HOSTS. Etc.
All of that is fairly simple with VBScript of javascript files running under Windows Script Host. (And of course, a specialized editor for
VBS is also handy. :)
And, if you have not already done so, do test if the batchfile works when started from the commandline.
   I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for non-fixed-width fonts. Really? That's your favorite editor? Few people actually hand-code HTML anymore, but there must still be decent
editors around.
On 2025-01-15 15:04, Newyana2 wrote:
I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for
non-fixed-width fonts. Really? That's your favorite editor? Few people
actually hand-code HTML anymore, but there must still be decent
editors around.
Vim is certainly ancient (it is a clone of 'vi'), but it is actively developed. It is designed for Linux/Unix (all linuxes and unixes have it
by default), and it has tons of features, but you have to be accustomed
to it in order to profit from them.
It is a plain text editor, not a word processor. It makes no use of proportional fonts, that would be ridiculous. Many programmers use and
love it, and will have you shot if you dare criticizing it :-P
On 1/16/2025 9:05 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-15 15:04, Newyana2 wrote:
    I just tried Vim for the
first time. It looks like a relic from 1980, without even support for
non-fixed-width fonts. Really? That's your favorite editor? Few people
actually hand-code HTML anymore, but there must still be decent
editors around.
Vim is certainly ancient (it is a clone of 'vi'), but it is actively
developed. It is designed for Linux/Unix (all linuxes and unixes have
it by default), and it has tons of features, but you have to be
accustomed to it in order to profit from them.
It is a plain text editor, not a word processor. It makes no use of
proportional fonts, that would be ridiculous. Many programmers use and
love it, and will have you shot if you dare criticizing it :-P
  Indeed. People can be quite irrational in their attachment to
the past, like a man who insists on making a campfire to cook
his dinner because "that's how we did it growing up". But it
gets more irrational when people make excuses to claim that
their campfire works better than a stove. The Internet is loaded
with such editors, that are deliberately designed not to have
any conveniences. In fact, I've noticed a new fashion of white
on black GUI, trying to make all windows look like console. But
I don't know if it's the old men or the kids who are promoting
that fad. (My own cmd.exe is set to a white window with dark
brown text. There's no actual reason that it needs to look like
a DOS screen out of 1990.)
  Forcing only fixed-width fonts, though, is something I've never
seen before.
I use Notepad for plain text editing and my own
editor for HTML. In both I use Verdana because it's clear for
reading and wide enough to easily see typos. Neither plain text
nor code requires fixed-width.
 I'm imaging two cranky old men. One proclaims that he will
only eat food from a campfire. The other teases him for using
matches instead of rubbing sticks together.
  None of this has anything to do with actually coding HTML,
which would make sense to do in an editor designed for the job.
Arlen is talking about writing automations in gvim to convert
UTF-8 to ANSI text, or writing BAT files to automate editing a
simple HTML file. So our two campfire buddies are not even
actually cooking their dinner. They just like to feel rustic. :)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:36:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
This information should be generally useful to everyone because it
allows
them to maintain a list of URLs that they can easily edit at any time.
Seamonkey has an html editor.
Good point.
Given there are essentially only 2 web browser code bases for Windows,
every Win10 browser will likely be sharing either Mozilla or Chromium code.
From Carlos' statement, we can presume Mozilla browsers use the Control+U. Does the Chromium code base have a similar "Control+U" single edit step?
I just tested it and it comes up similarly to Firefox, but read only. <view-source:chrome://settings/privacy>
Apparently the way Chromium does in-place modern editing is this:
1. Open Developer Tools:
2. Press Ctrl+Shift+I (or F12) on your keyboard. 3. Navigate to the "Elements" panel:
4. Right-click on the element you want to edit in the "Elements" panel.
5. Select "Edit as HTML" from the context menu.
That looks like more than a single step to me though.
And, of course, that HTML editor doesn't seem to use regular expressions.
Bear in mind, just being able to use the mouse and keyboard to edit complex html code is not really editing. It's more like plucking letters on & off.
For modern editing, you need some sort of HTML editor that works with
regular expressions - but I don't know of any user-friendly HTML editor.
For modern editing, you need some sort of HTML editor that works with
regular expressions - but I don't know of any user-friendly HTML editor.
Just give a try to Seamonkey. It is not Firefox, it is a fork. It
contains the old Composer that came with the ancient Netscape.
After you try it, decide if you like it or not.
The beauty of using any given web browser for only one thing is that one thing is set up perfectly within that browser, for privacy & security.
The beauty of using any given web browser for only one thing is that one
thing is set up perfectly within that browser, for privacy & security.
That's like using a different video player for each type of videos.
And you have to install the updates for all your browsers.
You can create as many profiles you like in Firefox.
Make one [firefox] your default profile and start the others by:
firefox.exe -profile "profile_path"
You can also have more than one installations of Firefox on a computer. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/CommandLineOptions
I've never used regexp for anything. I don't know why I might
use them editing HTML.
For HTML, or anything, I want an editor designed
for that specifically.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:08:28 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
For modern editing, you need some sort of HTML editor that works with
regular expressions - but I don't know of any user-friendly HTML editor.
Just give a try to Seamonkey. It is not Firefox, it is a fork. It
contains the old Composer that came with the ancient Netscape.
After you try it, decide if you like it or not.
Thanks for that advice to try SeaMonkey's HTML editor, which I have done. However, I'm currently using Firefox for one thing only & that's for Vine.
SeaMonkey is already being used for something else on my system.
Since my philosophy is each web browser does one thing and only one thing, you can rest assured I've tried almost every web browser there ever was.
Look here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/fT2J40RD/windows-cascade-menu.jpg> Windows browsers
The beauty of using any given web browser for only one thing is that one thing is set up perfectly within that browser, for privacy & security.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
I've never used regexp for anything. I don't know why I might
use them editing HTML.
Doing a word count, for example.
For HTML, or anything, I want an editor designed
for that specifically.
Do you really want a different editor for each type of text file you have
to deal with?!?
On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
  What these editors
advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly, Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added.
So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding
a particular language would use such a generic tool.
On 2025-01-18 15:09, Newyana2 wrote:
On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
...
What these editors
advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly,
Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added.
So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding
a particular language would use such a generic tool.
Well, this is not true. Most Linux programmers use vi or emacs.
Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
On 1/18/2025 9:25 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-18 15:09, Newyana2 wrote:
On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
...
   What these editors
advertise is endless code language support. If I remember correctly,
Notepad++ claims to support 50+ languages, and more can be added.
So they're being billed as code editors. No one serious about coding
a particular language would use such a generic tool.
Well, this is not true. Most Linux programmers use vi or emacs.
   Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
On 1/18/2025 1:47 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:49:44 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:I have a very simple VBScript on my desktop if I need a word
I've never used regexp for anything. I don't know why I might use them
editing HTML.
Doing a word count, for example.
count.
Do you really want a different editor for each type of text file youYes. Because there are not many.
have to deal with?!?
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. The same way that
you can not understand doing serious programming with vi, he can not understand me wanting an IDE.
Linus Torvalds uses microEmacs.
On 1/18/2025 3:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. The same way that
you can not understand doing serious programming with vi, he can not
understand me wanting an IDE.
Linus Torvalds uses microEmacs.
That could be. Are you still arguing that a simple, non-specialzed
editor is better than an IDE... because Linus Torvalds uses one?
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build system.
Is it as simple as the ELisp script I referenced? Remember, that
integrates into the editor, so it is just a few keystrokes away.
The thing you need to do is to realize and accept that when you find
yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
On 1/18/2025 3:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Most Linux fans, maybe. They're adamantly dedicated to
old-style tools and command line. But what are they writing?
Shell scripts? Maybe a little Perl? That's not programming code.
It's more like IT work. Anyone doing programming would likely
want an IDE if they can have it.
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE. The same way
that you can not understand doing serious programming with vi, he can
not understand me wanting an IDE.
Linus Torvalds uses microEmacs.
 That could be. Are you still arguing that a simple, non-specialzed
editor is better than an IDE... because Linus Torvalds uses one?
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a
general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build
system.
A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start
the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining
the variables (even writing into the variables).
Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.
That's interesting. So in a way you're programming the editor
yourself, to whatever extent you find useful. I can see how that
would be appealing for a particular usage.
On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a >>>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any
build
system.
A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start
the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining
the variables (even writing into the variables).
Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.
Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.
That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to have a
general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any build >>> system.
A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start
the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining
the variables (even writing into the variables).
Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.
Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:36:49 -0500, Newyana2 wrote:
That's interesting. So in a way you're programming the editor
yourself, to whatever extent you find useful. I can see how that
would be appealing for a particular usage.
Or indeed, for all usages. A programmable machine is a universal machine.
On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to
have a
general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any
build
system.
A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >>>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining
the variables (even writing into the variables).
Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.
Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.
That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.
Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully featured IDE.
Both things are true for many programmers.
Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully featured IDE.
On 19.01.2025 03:56, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.
IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to
have a
general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any >>>>>> build
system.
A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start >>>>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining >>>>> the variables (even writing into the variables).
Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.
Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.
That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.
Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But
similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully
featured IDE.
Yes. And I think you are right. But we should also sort things a bit.
An IDE is something completely different than an editor, of course.
It's a thing where typically tons of different features are combined
and _strongly interconnected_ to offer an integrated user experience.
That's a strength of IDEs, and a weakness. What LDO was implicitly
trying to point out was (I think) that it's good to have tools that
have a clear task (you don't pay for things that you don't want) and
a flexible interface (to make use of _powerful_ components). The tool
or IDE designers, for example, could provide a setting where you can
choose the (integrated) components. An editing interface, for example,
is quite simple and clear, and it would in principle be possible to
use any editor (per user setting) also in an IDE; for the interacting features you'd just need a (typically small) "adapter layer". In fact
there's quite some well designed tools that allow to use own editors.
The advantages are multifold; it's not only that you can use for the individual features specialized components - components that do their respective job much better than any IDE-built-in re-implementation of
a feature (or a "clone"). During the decades of my IT practice I used
IDEs twice. The problems I had with them was, for one, that I had to
use exactly what was supported by the IDE, and use of any powerful
tools to efficiently perform tasks that I was used to was impossible
or overly cumbersome by clumsy workarounds. For someone who is used
to do _arbitrarily complex_ editing functions in an _efficient_ way
(with powerful editors) it's really a pain to work with common IDEs.
But many people I observed were doing quite _primitive editing_; they
don't know better given all the GUI based primitive editors that we
typically often find as inferior ad hoc editing (re-)implementation
and that folks got used to. With IDEs it's often just a mouse orgy of clicking things together in a mixture of mouse/menu and text input,
no editing any more. The efficiency of keyboard(-only) input (e.g. in editors) has to be compensated by other means (like auto-completion).
I think that's one reason why the opinions are so strong and why the permeability from one group/type of users/programmers to the other
is so difficult. I'd only have wished that folks who speak about the
pros and cons [of IDEs and powerful editors] would not be completely
ignorant and full of prejudice; ignorance AND prejudice is a very bad
(and in Real Life topics even dangerous) combination.
Both things are true for many programmers.
Janis
PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature
set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor
but more of an IDE.
all the dreadful imaginations of the other poster about editors
we should emphasize that you don't need specialized programming to do
most of the complex editing functions. Personally I rarely program my
editor (Vim). But, of course, the scripting interface certainly also
makes it possible to support arbitrarily complex features. Or use just
some existing plug-in to support any special use case or higher level functions. Or make use of other simple editor mechanisms (like macros)
to support own preferences or specific operations beyond the existing (already powerful) basic editing features.
PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature
set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor
but more of an IDE.
for an editor that he only uses for editing one of a dozen basic text
code languages.
That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.
... you don't need specialized programming to do most
of the complex editing functions.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:00:53 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
... you don't need specialized programming to do most
of the complex editing functions.
I wonder, is it so many decades of conditioning by marketing departments
that constrains people to think in terms of market segments? So they automatically think “this product is for marketing segment A, but I’m in marketing segment B, so I don’t need it�
In Emacs, most of the editor itself is written using the same programming language you use for your own extensions. [...]
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 03:50:51 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.
You want to use a debugger, but you don’t want to start it running? How is that supposed to work?
Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.
The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the debugging. Not a stand alone debugger.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.
ELisp is not a “functional programming†language. And like it or not, Lisp
has always been a cutting-edge language, with features not commonly found
in more conventional languages.
Consider that one of the Vim family, Neovim, I think it is, has decided
that the traditional Vim extension language isn’t good enough, so it has adopted Lua as an extension language. At least it’s in the right
direction, but it still doesn’t have the power of Emacs.
Where is there an editor to compare with Emacs, with an extension language that is not Lisp, yet is equally powerful? There isn’t one.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the
debugging. Not a stand alone debugger.
What difference does it make? Why do you want the debugger to run in the
same process as the IDE? Do you want it to run in the same process as your program? That’s not how debuggers work on modern systems.
On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the
debugging. Not a stand alone debugger.
What difference does it make? Why do you want the debugger to run in the
same process as the IDE? Do you want it to run in the same process as
your
program? That’s not how debuggers work on modern systems.
It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is
what defines a complete and powerful IDE, having these functionalities inside, not on an external program (which also exists). This is
technology invented in the 90's or perhaps earlier by Borland.
On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the
debugging. Not a stand alone debugger.
What difference does it make? Why do you want the debugger to run in the same process as the IDE? Do you want it to run in the same process as your program? That?s not how debuggers work on modern systems.
It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is
what defines a complete and powerful IDE, having these functionalities inside, not on an external program (which also exists). This is
technology invented in the 90's or perhaps earlier by Borland.
On 2025-01-21 05:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The IDE has the debugger inside. I launch the IDE, the IDE does the
debugging. Not a stand alone debugger.
What difference does it make? Why do you want the debugger to run
in the same process as the IDE? Do you want it to run in the same
process as your program? That’s not how debuggers work on modern
systems.
It doesn't matter if it is the same process. It matters that this is
what defines a complete and powerful IDE ...
On 21.01.2025 05:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
Note that not all folks like functional programming in general or
specifically programming in Lisp-like languages.
ELisp is not a “functional programming†language. And like it or not,
Lisp has always been a cutting-edge language, with features not
commonly found in more conventional languages.
Oh, I thought it would have something to do with Lisp ...
Concerning Vim you can read it supports: "scripting languages (both
native and through alternative scripting interpreters such as Perl,
Python, Ruby, Tcl, etc.) including support for plugins". - Sounds
extremely flexible and powerful to me.
[*] I recall someone in Usenet - it might even have been you? - showed
some Lisp-like code (15-20 lines, or so) for Emacs to support some new function in Emacs. Vim supported that already natively.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 07:41:49 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 21.01.2025 05:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:26:04 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
Concerning Vim you can read it supports: "scripting languages (both
native and through alternative scripting interpreters such as Perl,
Python, Ruby, Tcl, etc.) including support for plugins". - Sounds
extremely flexible and powerful to me.
Which of those languages can be used to write “plugins� My feeling is, none of them.
[*] I recall someone in Usenet - it might even have been you? - showed
some Lisp-like code (15-20 lines, or so) for Emacs to support some new
function in Emacs. Vim supported that already natively.
Was it the function to do word counts in HTML files?
Where does Vim support that natively?
This is a strange question from someone who was elsethread advocating
an open, flexible editor interface (as Emacs or Vim have).
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:43:57 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote :
PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature
set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often
[humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor
but more of an IDE.
The problem set is (& always was) to edit HTML templates in a single
step.
CHANGE HTML FROM: <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=foo+bar>(amazon)
foo bar</A><P> <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=foo%20bar>(vine)
foo bar</A><P>
CHANGE HTML TO: <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/s?k=windows+pc>(amazon) windows pc</A><P> <A HREF=https://www.amazon.com/vine/vine-items?search=windows%20pc>(vine) windows pc</A><P>
Has anyone proposed a simpler one-step solution than that above? If
so, I'd love to see it as I'm seeking real working actual solutions.
This is a strange question from someone who was elsethread advocating
an open, flexible editor interface (as Emacs or Vim have).
I think whoever posted the story about the guys in the photo editing group hit the nail directly on the head.
Yet, the most complex code that person could write, according to his own claims, was a VBS script that did a simple word count (which, we all
know, can be accomplished with the wc macro in Vim, e.g., g+<control+G>.
Yet, the most complex code that person could write, according to his own
claims, was a VBS script that did a simple word count (which, we all
know, can be accomplished with the wc macro in Vim, e.g., g+<control+G>.
Remember, the code I linked to was doing a count of the words of text in
an HTML file, ignoring markup.
While gvim isn't intended to be an HTML editor, it would be nice to find a free cross-platform simple-to-use yet powerful HTML editor for this task.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a good cross-platform free HTML editor?
Does anyone have a suggestion for a good cross-platform free HTML editor?
Ha! You scandalous turncoat, you.
Anyone know how to escape those angle brackets in a batch script?
Please improve so that billions of people can benefit from this script
which appends a new URL & description to the users' global bookmarks.
# 1. Set your preferred text or HTML editor
editor="vi" # Replace with your preferred editor (e.g., nano, vim)
... VSCode. It's free, cross-platform and probably less than 2 GB.
Please improve so that billions of people can benefit from this script
which appends a new URL & description to the users' global bookmarks.
WOW!I'm really impressed! That's a new level of super egocentric hubris. Tried that right now on my Linux-System and it didn't do *anything*!
A really crappy programmed script.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:25:01 +0100, Frank Miller wrote :
[..snip..]Please improve so that billions of people can benefit from this script
which appends a new URL & description to the users' global bookmarks.
WOW!I'm really impressed! That's a new level of super egocentric hubris.
Tried that right now on my Linux-System and it didn't do *anything*!
A really crappy programmed script.
Funny you mention what I was working on for my dual-boot desktop PC...
It's not done yet, but even though the linux newsgroups were NOT on the newsgroups list, since you complained that the script worked for only
Windows users, here's an unfinished yet equivalent
# 1. Set your preferred text or HTML editor
editor="vi" # Replace with your preferred editor (e.g., nano, vim)
Why not use the standard EDITOR or VISUAL environment variables? That¢s
what they¢re for.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:25:01 +0100, Frank Miller wrote :
Please improve so that billions of people can benefit from this script
which appends a new URL & description to the users' global bookmarks.
WOW!I'm really impressed! That's a new level of super egocentric hubris.
Tried that right now on my Linux-System and it didn't do *anything*!
A really crappy programmed script.
Funny you mention what I was working on for my dual-boot desktop PC...
It's not done yet, but even though the linux newsgroups were NOT on the newsgroups list, since you complained that the script worked for only
Windows users, here's an unfinished yet equivalent Linux Bash script, [...]
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote :
# 1. Set your preferred text or HTML editor
editor="vi" # Replace with your preferred editor (e.g., nano, vim)
Why not use the standard EDITOR or VISUAL environment variables?
That�s what they�re for.
Good idea! Thanks for the improvement! Much appreciated. Will do!
[...]
WOW!I'm really impressed! That's a new level of super egocentric hubris.
Yeah, that's what made me laugh when I read it; imagining "billions"
of MS *.bat programmers.
Tried that right now on my Linux-System and it didn't do *anything*!
A really crappy programmed script.
Funny you mention what I was working on for my dual-boot desktop PC...
It's not done yet, but even though the linux newsgroups were NOT on the
newsgroups list, since you complained that the script worked for only
Windows users, here's an unfinished yet equivalent Linux Bash script, [...]
It would be yet more useful if you'd not have restricted your script
to Bash and Linux. The script is so primitive (i.e. it has no special features) that it can be written in standard shell for any standard
Unix.
Hints: use no "read -p" and no "[[...]]". And I'd replace 'echo' by
'printf' for a good measure (and also less [unnecessary] escaping).
Amazon told me they only select one out of a million of their customers to
be invited to the Amazon Vine program, so I'm not normal in that sense.
[...]
On 24.01.2025 19:03, Marion wrote:
[...]
I wanted to answer per email but got an error.
On 2025-01-25 14:22, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 24.01.2025 19:03, Marion wrote:
[...]
I wanted to answer per email but got an error.
An email to Marion, aka Arlen? All his addresses are faked.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 507 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 204:42:36 |
| Calls: | 9,969 |
| Files: | 13,828 |
| Messages: | 6,357,603 |
