cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) (09/01/89)
I'm about to start some C programming on MSDOS and was wondering what the best editor was to use. Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! Cliff
plb@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (peter.l.berghold) (09/02/89)
From article <21743@cup.portal.com>, by cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer): > I'm about to start some C programming > on MSDOS and was wondering what > the best editor was to use. > > Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! > I'm rather partial to the Q editor. It has a lot of bang for the buck and does the job just fine. Other than that I use a PC version of VI, and the LSE editor that comes with Lattice C. Pete ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | _ /| || Peter L. Berghold, AT&T, HRSAG, UUCP: att!violin!plb | | \`o_O' ||============================================================ | | ( ) || Disclaimer: If you find an opinion in this posting somewhere| | U || it is no doubt mine, and not my employers. I'm the only | | Aachk! || person crazy enough to take this stand! | | Phft! || | VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
einari@rhi.hi.is (Einar Indridason) (09/02/89)
In article <21743@cup.portal.com> cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) writes: >I'm about to start some C programming >on MSDOS and was wondering what >the best editor was to use. > >Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! > >Cliff I like emacs and it is currently my editor of choice. I hate vi, but then some other will say: "I use vi and hate emacs" or something like that. My suggestion is this: Try to get hands-on experience on as many editors as you can. Think about their configurability, their versality, memory requirements etc. Then the choice is up to you. A few you might try to get you hands on: Micro-emacs, vi, jove, vde, edlin (no, I didn't say that :-) ....... Please let's not start another my-editor-is-the-best-but-[insert-your-favourite- anti-editor-in]-really-stinks war. (What is this doing in comp.lang.c ?????) -- To quote Alfred E. Neuman: "What! Me worry????" |||| Pobody is Nerfect !!! Internet: einari@rhi.hi.is UUCP: ..!mcvax!hafro!rhi!einari
jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) (09/02/89)
cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) writes: >I'm about to start some C programming >on MSDOS and was wondering what >the best editor was to use. >Cliff - - So far I have not come across anything perfect. I use the editor which is built into Turbo C, which is only fair (memorized control key combinations to do most advanced functions, no facility for two files on screen at once, no 132 character or 43 line modes, no easy way to read one file into the file you're editing). Many people recommend qedit, which is a tiny editor in the shareware market. I think it, too, is only fair. I could not make multiple windows work; it fills in blanks for tabs (YUCKKK); but it does understand c style. I've used the editor (pt) supplied with the Logitech mouse. It is a nice editor but doesn't support c style (indenting, etc.) The ideal editor would have excellent multiple window features, great mouse support, and understand c and other styles. It might warn you of imbalanced quotes, parenthesis, braces, etc., if it was REALLY good. If it was OUTSTANDING it would even offer warnings about possible subtle errors like braces, semicolons, etc., inside comments. Also any warnings, features, tabsize, substitution of spaces for tabs, etc., would be user selectable in a setup file (like qedit's). " I don't want to imply I'm underpaid, but ... Last time I took my paycheck to the bank to be cashed, the teller asked me, 'How would you like that, sir, Heads, or Tails?' " Jerry ( jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM ) -----
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Newton) (09/03/89)
In article <1191@starfish.Convergent.COM> jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >is built into Turbo C, which is only fair (memorized control key >on screen at once, no 132 character or 43 line modes, no easy way to read Turbo C 2.0 does have a 42 line mode -- "Life is just a popularity contest, and I didn't get my entry in on time." -David L. Newton David L. Newton (414) 524-7253 dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu =8-) (smiley w/ a mohawk) (414) 524-7343 uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton
bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com (Michael Hunter) (09/03/89)
This question probably doesn't really belong in this group...but I just
couldn't stand to loose the oportunity to put in a plug for my
favorite editor. That editor is the PD editor called black beard. It
appears, at first look, to be a distant relative of MicroEMACS...and that
may be true. But its real strength is in its windowing and in its
multilanguage ability. It also has all of the standard editing stuff,
mouse support, the ability to "remember" what the last file it was used
on and where in the file it was. If anyone is interested and can't find
a copy (I origianlly got it from PC-SIG before I registered it) drop
me a letter either here or at bagpiper@oxy.edu (for a few months more) and\
I will arrange to send you a copy.
Michael Hunter
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper
INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.compjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (09/03/89)
How about MicroEmacs??? -- Pete Holsberg -- Mercer College -- Trenton, NJ 08690 ...!rutgers!princeton!njsmu!mccc!pjh
erik@stsim.UUCP (Erik Kascik) (09/05/89)
In my opinion, QEdit 2.08 is the best C editor for MS-DOS. Multi-Edit is also workable. erik(..uunet!ocsmd!stsim!erik);
jvb7u@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jon Brinkmann) (09/05/89)
Aw come on guys! Hasn't anyone out there use Multi-Edit? I've found it to be the best editor I have ever used, and I've used alot of them (EDT, EVE, VI, EMACS to name a few). On top of that, you can get a free demo copy from SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL. It's called PD1:<MSDOS.EDITOR>ME400A.ARC.1 It supports over a dozen different languages as well as having a very nice macro language of it's own. You can configure it to do just about anything you want. The macro language has elements of both PASCAL and C in it, so it's fairly easy to use. The language itself is written in with an assembler kernel and a user 'shell' written in this macro language. The base package (executables only) runs about $100. If you want the source code for the shell and their debugger, I think it's about $175. I suggest you get the demo package and try it. You won't be disappointed! Jon
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) (09/05/89)
In article <1191@starfish.Convergent.COM> jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) writes: >>I'm about to start some C programming >>on MSDOS and was wondering what >>the best editor was to use. >>Cliff > >The ideal editor would have excellent multiple window features, great >mouse support, and understand c and other styles. It might warn you of >imbalanced quotes, parenthesis, braces, etc., if it was REALLY good. If >it was OUTSTANDING it would even offer warnings about possible subtle >errors like braces, semicolons, etc., inside comments. Also any >warnings, features, tabsize, substitution of spaces for tabs, etc., would >be user selectable in a setup file (like qedit's). > Well, for what its worth, I use PC/VI, sold by the now-defunct custom Software Systems , formerly of Natick MA (There is also a PC version of vi from MKS which is said to be (virtually)complete), and I find that it even has the same bugs which appear in VI on the system V machine I used to work on. When I am not using PC/VI, I am using MicroEmacs because it allows multiple windows, works with a mouse, and also has many of the features requested in the previous posting. The trouble with MicroEmacs (nay, ALL emacs's) is that my fingers are well-trained for the vi command keys, and when using some other editor I find that my files tend to have oddcollections of h, j, k, or l's interspersed in them! Fred
drcook@hubcap.clemson.edu (david richard cook) (09/05/89)
From article <21743@cup.portal.com>, by cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer): > I'm about to start some C programming > on MSDOS and was wondering what > the best editor was to use. > > Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! > > Cliff I have been using Epsilon from Lugaru Software for over 3 years and highly reccommend it. Some of the features I find especially attractive are: 1. The ability to run your compiler concurrently inside the editor thus allowing you to edit and compile at the same time. Epsilon can parse the compiler's error messages and pull the offending file into the editor and position the cursor on the line of the error. To my knowledge, this is the only editor available for MS-DOS that allows for an inferior shell. 2. Epsilon is completely extensible. All of Epsilon's functions are written in EEL (Epsilon Extension Language) which is esentially C with a few ommissions and extensions. All of the EEL source code and the EEL compiler comes with the Epsilon package. 3. Supports a unlimited number of files and unlimited file size. 4. Epsilon is the most faithful Emacs clone for the PC that I am aware of. It supports the major modes: C-mode, fundamental, dired, and others. If you are an Emacs user you will feel right a home with Epsilon. The main disadvantages to Epsilon are: 1. If you are new to Emacs, you will have to do a lot of learning in order to realize the full power of this editor. 2. Epsilon retails for $195.00, and is available for about $160.00 from mailorder companies. David R. Cook
gvr@brunix (George Reilly) (09/06/89)
I don't think anyone has mentioned BRIEF yet in this thread, which surprises me. BRIEF is, I suppose, a descendant of Emacs and includes such useful features as an extensible C-cum-Lisp macro programming language, multiple buffers and multiple windows, template editing, ability to compile without leaving BRIEF, etc. I have certainly found it to be far more usable than Borland's integrated editors, for example. I haven't used any other so-called programming editors under MS-DOS so I can't say how well it compares to its competitors. There was a review of several programming editors in BYTE about six months ago, and BRIEF came out quite well, as I recall. George Reilly gvr@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!gvr gvr@browncs.bitnet Box 1910 Brown U Prov RI 02912
grasmann@atps.dec.com (Aspirations of a higher nature) (09/06/89)
In article <21743@cup.portal.com>, cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) writes... >I'm about to start some C programming >on MSDOS and was wondering what >the best editor was to use. > >Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! > >Cliff How about Turbo C? The editor is built-in, and has some nice features for structuring your C program file... Steve Grasmann grasmann@atps.dec.com
syrjanen@cs.Helsinki.FI (Seppo Syrjanen) (09/06/89)
In article <1438@hiatus.dec.com> grasmann@atps.dec.com (Aspirations of a higher nature) writes: >In article <21743@cup.portal.com>, cliffhanger@cup.portal.com (Cliff C Heyer) writes... >>I'm about to start some C programming >>on MSDOS and was wondering what >>the best editor was to use. >> >>Any suggestions greatly appreciated!! >> >>Cliff > >How about Turbo C? The editor is built-in, and has some nice features for >structuring your C program file... > >Steve Grasmann grasmann@atps.dec.com There IS a point using the editors in integrated programming environments. At least I prefer following features of TC over using a separate, although better, editor: -Error messages are obtained to a separate window, cursor is positioned at the error. -Switching between files could't be more much easy: cursor is positioned to the position where it was when the file was last edited, switching to the previous file needs only one keystroke. This feature more or less compensates the lack of multifile capabilities. -Compiler/linker/environment are easily configured by menus. -Debugger. -On-line language help. -Project files (=make). The alternative way to do this is to use a separate editor, compiler and debugger, make and (possibly) a separate pop-up help program. If TC contained only editor and compiler, I would be tempted to use a separate editor, but even the time it takes to load all necessary support programs makes it too clumsy for me. The integration of TC and QuickC is a very heavy thing to consider here. So, if the editor isn't worlds greatest one, its integration to compiler and debugger makes it more attractive choice. Seppo Syrjanen Internet : syrjanen@cc.Helsinki.FI Computing Center BITNET : syrjanen@finuha.bitnet University of Helsinki Phone : +358 0 708 4132 Finland "Cyborg's gotta do what cyborg's programmed to do." -ABC
holtz@sce.carleton.ca (Neal Holtz) (09/08/89)
Epsilon, from Lugaru Software. Besides all the normal EMACS stuff (C-mode, extensible via programming language, multi-windows/files, etc) you can run a DOS shell (i.e. compilers) in the background while you continue to edit files, with auto-positioning to lines that generate compiler error messages. Worth every penny. -- ------------------------------------------ Prof. Neal Holtz <holtz@cascade.carleton.ca> Dept. of Civil Engineering / Carleton University / Ottawa
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (09/13/89)
I don't want to clutter the newsgroup, but a previous poster recommended Epsilon from Lugaru. He described several features of BRIEF (run compiler from editor, parse output to position to error line, unlimited files/size, configurable using internal editor-description language, etc.) and then commented that Epsilion was the only editor he knew of with these features. Well, BRIEF has these features and a few more and you don't have to mess with learning Emacs. We had an Emacs-type here once, but he's gone now. At the moment, we're divided between vi users and BRIEF users in our shop. We all know that editors are religious issues (who started this thread, anyway?), but I can highly recommend BRIEF from over three years of use-- it's largely modeless and its optimized for the PC environment and it is completely configurable (I weaned myself from WordStar just by making BRIEF look like WordStar, for example). /alastair/
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (09/17/89)
In an article of <13 Sep 89 14:36:06 GMT>, (Alastair Dallas) writes: >I don't want to clutter the newsgroup, but a previous poster recommended >Epsilon from Lugaru. ...As would I, although I don't want to clutter it up either. >... He ...commented that Epsilion was the only editor he knew of with >[the listed] features. > >Well, BRIEF has these features and a few more and you don't have to mess >with learning Emacs. Epsilon is unique among EMACS derivative editors in that its extension language is a dialect of C rather than LISP. This lesson was not lost on the authors of Brief who recently made the same change. In addition to the usual key bindings and new functions you can write in Epsilon's EEL, it is a full-featured C subset which comes with its own compiler and includes interrupt functions. One Epsilon user wrote his own personalized interrupt- driven mouse package in Epsilon's EEL in under two hours. Epsilon's other claim to fame in the DOS world is true multi-tasking. Using an Epsilon process window, you can run a program in the background while still editing in the foreground. Unless memory fails me, Brief at one time also had (has?) a line length limitation. This would've been unacceptable for one use to which I put Epsilon. I had run a communications test over a three-day weekend, capturing all comm data on a PC. This was a multi-megabyte file (about 6 MB as I recall) without a single CR or LF character in the entire file - a single line. When I got in, I spent 2 minutes loading the file into Epsilon and writing an ad hoc macro to parse it for me, then started it and went to get my morning soft drink. A couple a minutes later, I was back and the file had been processed. I split it up further, eventually winding up with close to 100 active buffers in as many windows as the screen could hold. I don't think Brief could have done it... >We all know that editors are religious issues (who started this thread, >anyway?), but I can highly recommend BRIEF from over three years of use-- I've used Brief at client sites before and can agree that it's a fine editor. I also agree wholeheartedly that this is a largely religious issue and only of interest to those who've not already been proselytized (I'd already used EMACS on a variety of platforms and was used to setting up my own personized set of functions and key bindings wherever I went). However, like you, I've used Epsilon for well over three years on PC and can recommend it highly. BTW, for PC users on a budget, I can also recommend EC from C Source and the shareware editor Qedit - both excellent products for around $50. For even more limited budgets, check out the shareware editor Blackbeard for $25 or so.