 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh, boomer! How have I missed such fun thread! :D
BTW, code completion works best in the editors you mentioned than in the
WinPov editor itself: it completes not only keywords, but also
identifiers, like user-defined function, macro and variable names... and
because it's a simple and efficient text-completion mechanism, it doesn't
take huge amounts of memory by cramming a whole parser and semantic
analyser into the editor, like Windows-minded IDEs do...
About Povclipse: hey, it's java! Shouldn't it run anywhere for granted?
My best bet is vim. Or emacs if you don't mind developing finger dextery
like a pianist...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is an old thread, but I kept seeing it when I would refresh this
group, so I figured I'd read it.
> > One central thing is that Unix users tend to insist using the same
> > editor for most editing tasks.
> Philippe Debar wrote:
> It is a tendency and not rule, isn't it? I know some hardcore unix guru
> will use the same editor for everything :
I wonder if that tendency did not develop as a result of not having a
proper "clipboard" for some time. Whatever the reason, this tendency has
contributed to the survival of interface paradigms which thrive despite
rejection by the majority - or merely plurality. Try one of these[1] and
you might find you like it even more than the Win-Pov editor.
-Shay
[1] If you haven't after all of these months.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <Sha### [at] cc cc> wrote:
> I wonder if that tendency did not develop as a result of not having a
> proper "clipboard" for some time.
clipboard, CUA standards, whatever... we should be thankful such things didn't
exist back then, or else we'd be all pretty much immersed in sterile
notepad-thinking sameness... like using several different editors from several
IDEs which are actually all the same thing.
IDEs and need for different editors is a thing of a utility-poor environment
like Windows, where any significant tools are only provided by commercial
vendors...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>
> IDEs and need for different editors is a thing of a utility-poor
> environment like Windows, where any significant tools are only
> provided by commercial vendors...
Is that really the case? I thought all of the more significant freeware
projects (Emacs, Vim, Firefox, Latex, Eclipse, etc.) worked on Windows
as well.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> >
> > IDEs and need for different editors is a thing of a utility-poor
> > environment like Windows, where any significant tools are only
> > provided by commercial vendors...
>
> Is that really the case? I thought all of the more significant freeware
> projects (Emacs, Vim, Firefox, Latex, Eclipse, etc.) worked on Windows
> as well.
sorry, I meant what comes out of the box, like Notepad, DOS console, javascript
interpreter inside IE etc... it's a poor environment and commercial providers
thrived by their all-in-one solutions. Specially in the past, without internet
connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
