(I realize that there's not a poll option here, of course, so we'll just have to make do with a comment in response.)
If it won't trouble anybody too much, could you tell me...
- what text editor you use
- what text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist
- what factor separates the two
I use...
cog on 2005-05-23T13:01:45
1. what text editor you use
Vim.
2. what text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist
I assume that if Vim didn't exist something like it would have to be invented, so I'd probably be using that one. Assuming just one of the existing ones, probably Emacs.
3. what factor separates the two
The most important factor is that I'm used to Vim and know my way around. I don't have any practice with Emacs and I don't feel there's a need for that. Vim suits all my needs. Er... for text editing.
reply
1. what text editor you use Vim.
2. what text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist Probably Emacs. Not really sure. Most likely something OSS. Defintetly not note/word pad.
3. what factor separates the two I've spent more time with vi/vim than emacs. Although my vim-fu could be stronger as does my emacs. Of course, to have strong emacs-fu one needs good lisp-fu.
Not this again :-)
jk2addict on 2005-05-23T13:56:45
1. what text editor you use
On windows, Textpad. On FreeBSD, Pico.
2. what text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist
On windows, UltraEdit. On FreeBSD, edit.
3. what factor separates the two
I've never liked the UltraEdit interface. It looked out of place and had way to much stuff.
On FreeBSD, I'm a sinner. I've never ever liked vi/emacs. Just give me something simple to do the job. Unless of course I'm in KDE, then all bets are off.
text editors
episod on 2005-05-23T14:54:03
What do I use most often?
http://www.jedit.org/, believe it or not -- it's fast, I like the customizability of the syntax highlighting, shortcuts, etc. The PerlBrowse plugin is worth its weight, though I know there's a better solution out there. EPIC for Eclipse is way too slow.
What would I use otherwise?
Emacs probably. I use jed in console mode generally. It's lack of a tab-based interface is my main gripe with Emacs.
re: text editor poll
kjones4 on 2005-05-23T15:54:50
1.) what text editor you use
Vim.
2.) what text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist
Probably pico, but maybe emacs
3.) what factor separates the two
Despite the modal interface I find that Vim is simpler than emacs and much more powerful than pico. For the types of things I do on an everyday basis, Vim works well. Pico is a possible alternative because it is dead simple and I learned the keystrokes while using Pine over period of several years. In fact, Vim was my alternate editor under Pine when I needed to do heavy duty text mangling. Emacs has become a little more interesting to me lately, but the time involved to learn it well has been a deterrent to making the plunge.
vim
Juerd on 2005-05-23T16:31:29
1. Vim
2. I'd be lost, but would probably be using vi or mcedit
3. I want an editor that fires up quickly, and is very powerful without all sorts of chorded keyboard shortcuts. I don't open files from within my editor. Instead, I work from the command line. I want an editor, not an OS, file manager, or IDE with a built in editor feature.
vim
1. vim
2. emacs with viper mode
3. viper mode doesn't implement all of the vim features that I use. Last time I tried it, it didn't support "v5wd", or perhaps more importantly, "C-v5jI ESC".
emacs
TeeJay on 2005-05-23T17:33:41
My editor is choice is emacs, all others are the spawn of the devil.
If there was no emacs I would hold a magnet and manipulate the data manually, no I lie, I would probably use vi but it has a crazy ui and search/replace and dealing with areas of text suck, and of course I would burn in a special hell where you have to edit huge cobol programs using vi with the : key missing from the keyboard and no thumbs
Off the top of my head...
jweveland on 2005-05-23T17:47:25
1) Per platform, whatever is the default, installed editor for that platform; i.e. whatever vi comes with each unix/linux, notepad on windows, tpu (in edt mode
:-) on vms, etc;
1a) On windows, esp. older versions where notepad is morally broken (eg 32k limit, etc), and systems I will spend a lot of time on (eg primary workstations) I also generally have either PFE or ConText installed along with vim;
2+3) Tough to answer directly, given #1, but...
2) If my plan for a given system included installing an editor for personal use, probably vim just because I've spend about 10 years in various flavors of vi (I get tired of forgetting that h, j, k, l do not work in notepad
:-);
3) Default presence is the key. I end up with a lot of systems that need some minor tweak 2-3 times per year, it's not worth installing an editor just for that. I end up on a lot of systems that have vendor support, and working around the absence of "my custom stuff" isn't fun. I'd need the ability to bare metal disaster recover, I in the event I was doing this for real I'd not want to lose time installing (and compiling?) my own editor. Your mileage will most certainly vary.
I feel pretty much the same way about shells, IDEs, etc. I want/need to be able to function in the default toolset for the system. Not a hard and fast rule, just a guideline. One of the nicer things the last few years is the number of boxen that include some version of perl by default... it saves on exception making.
nano
ajt on 2005-05-23T19:08:31
On Linux I mostly use GNU Nano (or Pico), I use vi now and then as it's common on *nix. On Cygwin/Windows I use Nano agin. On plain Windows I use PFE.
My second editor on Linux would be Kate, it's nice and simple, but has enough features to be useful. I loath vi, but I'm trying to learn it so it is my other second application. On Windows I've used TextPad, which is okay.
I mosty use nano/pico because they run in a console, which gives them an edge over a GUI application. I suppose if nano/pico didn't exist then I'd use vi as my first editor, and Kate would still be my second choice.
The main reason I use one thing over another is probably familiarity, it's the same with Linux, I know Debian better than Red Hat, so I prefer it, that's not to say that one is better than the other.
Me too
rhesa on 2005-05-23T19:08:56
1. Vim.
2. I'd go back to Textpad, probably. I've used it for ages and am used to it. I'd search some for something similar on Linux, but it would _not_ be Emacs. Can't stand its keybindings and other idiosyncracies, and don't want to get used to them.
3. OS, I guess.
emacs, vi, whatever is available
jjohn on 2005-05-23T22:01:27
That's my editor degradation path. Emacs is available on every platform that I work on, as is vi (or vim). I have no complaints about emacs and am not searching for a replacement.
promiscuity
pjm on 2005-05-24T01:59:48
So many platforms...
On OS X it's TextMate for now, mixed in with a bit of TextWrangler/BBEdit. I always use vim when editing in a terminal window.
Elsewhere it's vim all the way, except for the occasional ancient beast on which I'm forced back to vi.
If vim didn't exist I might have to look at waking up the (s)lumbering brontosaurus. Err, emacs.
Emacs, please.
mdxi on 2005-05-24T03:48:44
1) Emacs (GNU, compiled from CVS).
2) Almsot certainly Vim.
3) These days, only two factors. That I've been using Emacs forever, and that Vim doesn't have something truly comparable to elisp in the extension language department.
Re:
Aristotle on 2005-05-24T11:57:39
-
What text editor you use?
I configured Firefox to let me use h j k l for scrolling. :-)
-
What text editor you would use instead if the one you use did not exist?
Escape Meta Alt Control Shift. :-) Mostly likely, anyway.
-
What factor separates the two?
I hate chords. I like modes. I like not having to carry my dotfile around to function productively.
But a programmable heavy lifting tool for text manipulation which can run in a console is a must. (I run gvim most of the time, because it’s nicer, but I require an editor that is usable when I’m SSHed to another machine.) There’s no way I’d settle for anything less.
