tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (02/15/91)
Although I am not a programmer, I use ascii text editors a lot. For
example, I am finishing a book manuscript and the publisher wants pure
ascii. There are plenty of word processors around, but most of them
lately are heavy on formatting features and fairly light on
sophisticated editing features, and most are quite slow to use, for
those of us who are stuck with trailing edge technology.
Many editors are obviously intended to be used by programmers; some are
adaptable to other purposes. I propose to make a list of the features
that I take to be most desirable, and see if anyone knows of an MS-DOS
editor that has all of them.
(1) Unlimited file size. That is, the editor should be capable of
swapping to disk or to extended memory when the file(s) get large or
numerous. It can be useful, for example, to load several chapters at
once for tracking down cross-references. [Tech-edit 2.5 does this]
(2) Multiple files and windows. I don't care so much about vertical
screen splitting, but it can be very useful to have a number of windows
open simultaneously, and one should be able to edit as many files as one
wants. [Most editors can do something along these lines, although some,
such as the Ravitz Editor, are limited to two windows]
(3) Macro/extension language. It should support a standard set of
programming constructs, including branching and looping. [Micro-emacs is
preeminent here. VDE (video display editor) has a primitive language;
some others allow editing of simple non-branching macros]
(4) Regular expression search and replace. [Micro-emacs and tech-edit]
(5) Full undelete. That is, one should be able to undelete lines or
blocks of text of any size (limited perhaps by available memory). Some
editors, such as Qedit, are still limited to a line-by-line approach to
undeleting.
(6) Full undo. This should include undoing of search and replace
commands, and even regular expression search/replace. Tech-edit has
partial undo--it will undo block movement and deletions but not
search/replace changes. I know of no PC editor that has full undo.
(7) Keystroke flexibility. Ideally, the editor should allow you to
assign whatever functions to whatever keystrokes, or sequences of
keystrokes. Micro-emacs is pretty good about this, and so is Bingo 2.0.
The Whitney editor allows single-key command definitions, and Qedit has
a limited acceptance of multiple-keystroke definitions.
(8) Flexible region marking. There are still editors that only allow
complete lines to be marked for copying, deleting and moving. This is
not acceptable.
Obviously, there are plenty of other "routine" editor functions that
need to be there, but I know of no single editor that supports all of
the above eight.
--
Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu
"In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blakeberg@marvin.e17.physik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg) (02/15/91)
Todd Moody writes: >(1) Unlimited file size. BRIEF v3.0 can handle up to 2^31 lines in a file (does that qualify as "unlimited"? :-) >(2) Multiple files and windows. BRIEF has it. Windows can be as much as screen size permits and can be tiled arbitrarily. >(3) Macro/extension language. BRIEF supports TWO macro languages. One LISP like, and one C like. The LISP like version uses C command abbreviations. The C like version is a virtually complete *superset* of C. (of course all the C constructs are supported (if,else,while,etc...) >(4) Regular expression search and replace. BRIEF has it. >(5) Full undelete. >(6) Full undo. In BRIEF you can undo/undelete EVERYTHING you can think of (limited by memory size only). >(7) Keystroke flexibility. You can redefine all keys or arbitry long key sequences in BRIEF. >(8) Flexible region marking. BRIEF supports normal blocks, line blocks, and *column* blocks. >Obviously, there are plenty of other "routine" editor functions that >need to be there, but I know of no single editor that supports all of >the above eight. Now you know at least one editor that supports all of the above eight. I myself use CRISP, a UNIX implementation of BRIEF, which is available in source code. Though I don't know if it can be ported to MSDOS readily. -- Sincerely, berg@marvin.e17.physik.tu-muenchen.de Stephen R. van den Berg. "I code it in 5 min, optimize it in 90 min, because it's so well optimized: it runs in only 5 min. Actually, most of the time I optimize programs."
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve HASTINGS) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb15.032234.4724@sjuphil.uucp> tmoody@sjuphil.UUCP () writes: >Although I am not a programmer, I use ascii text editors a lot. For >example, I am finishing a book manuscript and the publisher wants pure >ascii. There are plenty of word processors around, but most of them >lately are heavy on formatting features and fairly light on >sophisticated editing features, and most are quite slow to use, for >those of us who are stuck with trailing edge technology. Brief, Sage Professional Editor, and the Microsoft Programmer's WorkBench editor that comes with Microsoft C version 6 satisfy all your listed criteria. They all share one drawback: slow startup time. If you will bend some of your criteria, there are some good choices with some tradeoffs: Microsoft Word 5.5 is great for editing, spell-checking, thesaurus, etc.; has multiple windows; in fact meets all your criteria except for the ability to map commands to *any* key (you may only map to Ctrl and Ctrl+Shift keys) and the macro language, which does have some programming constructs like IF/ELSE but is not a full-blown language. If you do use Word, I suggest you use its macro ability to make sure it always saves in text-only format; it is easy to save in Word format by mistake. (Also easy to correct that problem, though. Word format has junk at the beginning and a lot of junk at the end, but in the middle is clean ASCII. If you ever were to send a Word document by mistake anyone with a text editor could recover the clean ASCII.) PC-Write is a fantastic ASCII-only editor that meets most of your criteria; its maximum file size is limited to what will fit in your 640k, its macros are strings of keystrokes, and its windowing features are limited. But it is a real word processor, designed for writers, and it starts up *instantly* and runs fast on even an XT. It has a number of thoughtful features designed to make it easy to use even on big projects, though it can't handle huge files in one chunk. (For example, if you put one chapter per file and end the filenames with chapter numbers, you can switch to the next or previous chapter with one keystroke, and print or spell-check the whole series of chapter files with one command.) Important: PC-Write has features that allow you to automatically apply styles, like style sheets in Word, to your files without embedding any control codes in the files themselves! (You make a different setup file for each *extension*: so you could have file.ltt for letters, file.mnu for manuscripts, etc., and have each one formatted differently.) Personal Editor III, available from Personally Developed Software (phone: 1-800-IBM-PCSW), satisfies most if not all of your criteria. I have used PE2, and it had all the features you want but the full-blown macro language. PE3 might have added that, but I have no data. For writing a book, I suggest you use an actual word processor -- either PC-Write or Microsoft Word 5.5. Word 5.5 is better in many ways, but costs more; PC-Write is shareware, and you can pay as little as $15 to use it legally forever. In case you are wondering, I use vi for almost everything, Microsoft Word 5.5 for clean ASCII documents, and Microsoft Word for Windows for formatted documents. I used to use PE2 and PC-Write heavily. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (02/17/91)
Re Brief: It sounds perfect. A few questions: Is it enormous, or can
it run off a floppy? Where can I get it nd how much does it cost?
Thanks for the information.
--
Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu
"In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blakehnridder@cs.ruu.nl (Ernst de Ridder) (02/18/91)
In <1991Feb15.032234.4724@sjuphil.uucp> tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) writes: >(1) Unlimited file size. That is, the editor should be capable of >swapping to disk or to extended memory when the file(s) get large or >numerous. It can be useful, for example, to load several chapters at >once for tracking down cross-references. [Tech-edit 2.5 does this] Epsilon: limited only by available diskspace >(2) Multiple files and windows. I don't care so much about vertical >screen splitting, but it can be very useful to have a number of windows >open simultaneously, and one should be able to edit as many files as one >wants. [Most editors can do something along these lines, although some, >such as the Ravitz Editor, are limited to two windows] Epsilon: Both horizontal and vertical screensplitting >(3) Macro/extension language. It should support a standard set of >programming constructs, including branching and looping. [Micro-emacs is >preeminent here. VDE (video display editor) has a primitive language; >some others allow editing of simple non-branching macros] Epsilon: Full C-like extensionlanguage. The differences to K&R C are listed in less then 1 page! Since no key is directly bound to a kernelfunction, it is easy to configure Epsilon completely to your liking. >(4) Regular expression search and replace. [Micro-emacs and tech-edit] Epsilon: has it! >(5) Full undelete. That is, one should be able to undelete lines or >blocks of text of any size (limited perhaps by available memory). Some >editors, such as Qedit, are still limited to a line-by-line approach to >undeleting. Epsilon! >(6) Full undo. This should include undoing of search and replace >commands, and even regular expression search/replace. Tech-edit has >partial undo--it will undo block movement and deletions but not >search/replace changes. I know of no PC editor that has full undo. Epsilon! >(7) Keystroke flexibility. Ideally, the editor should allow you to >assign whatever functions to whatever keystrokes, or sequences of >keystrokes. Micro-emacs is pretty good about this, and so is Bingo 2.0. > The Whitney editor allows single-key command definitions, and Qedit has >a limited acceptance of multiple-keystroke definitions. Epsilon can do it! >(8) Flexible region marking. There are still editors that only allow >complete lines to be marked for copying, deleting and moving. This is >not acceptable. Again, Epsilon! >Obviously, there are plenty of other "routine" editor functions that >need to be there, but I know of no single editor that supports all of >the above eight. Seems to me there is at least one :-) : Epsilon BTW -- Some other positive facts about Epsilon: -It's fast enough to be comfortably used on an XT -It's small enough to be used on a machine without HD Greetings, Ernst popa iret
csko@cybaswan.UUCP (y w ko) (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb15.032234.4724@sjuphil.uucp> tmoody@sjuphil.UUCP () writes: >Although I am not a programmer, I use ascii text editors a lot. For >example, I am finishing a book manuscript and the publisher wants pure : : : >that I take to be most desirable, and see if anyone knows of an MS-DOS >editor that has all of them. > : : : >-- >Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu > "In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blake My favourite editor on the PC is the Microsoft editor that is bundled with MS 'C' and Fortran. It does everything that I've ever needed and seems to do everything you've listed. y.w.ko
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (02/19/91)
In article <4871@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> hnridder@cs.ruu.nl (Ernst de Ridder) writes: >In <1991Feb15.032234.4724@sjuphil.uucp> tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) writes: >>Obviously, there are plenty of other "routine" editor functions that >>need to be there, but I know of no single editor that supports all of >>the above eight. > >Seems to me there is at least one :-) : Epsilon > >BTW -- Some other positive facts about Epsilon: >-It's fast enough to be comfortably used on an XT >-It's small enough to be used on a machine without HD > > > Greetings, > Ernst Thank you. Now I know of two: Brief and Epsilon. Is Epsilon commercial or shareware? Could you tell me where it can be ordered and how much it costs? Thanks much for the information. -- Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu "In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blake
tmoody@sjuphil.uucp (T. Moody) (02/25/91)
In article <70729@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >Brief, Sage Professional Editor, and the Microsoft Programmer's >WorkBench editor that comes with Microsoft C version 6 satisfy all your >listed criteria. They all share one drawback: slow startup time. Brief has already been mentioned by several people here. I'll look into the other two. Thank you. >If you will bend some of your criteria, there are some good choices >with some tradeoffs: > >Microsoft Word 5.5 is great for editing, spell-checking, thesaurus, etc.; >has multiple windows; in fact meets all your criteria except for the >ability to map commands to *any* key (you may only map to Ctrl and >Ctrl+Shift keys) and the macro language, which does have some programming >constructs like IF/ELSE but is not a full-blown language. If you do use >Word, I suggest you use its macro ability to make sure it always saves in >text-only format; it is easy to save in Word format by mistake. I have used Word 5.0, at least, for correspondence and reports. Frankly, it seems a bit expensive to be used as an ascii editor, and it is *very* slow loading on my XT. Also, when a file is saved as ascii, it puts carriage returns at the end of each line, so that you can't readily reformat the paragraphs after modifying them. I suppose a macro could take care of this, however. >PC-Write is a fantastic ASCII-only editor that meets most of your criteria; >its maximum file size is limited to what will fit in your 640k, its >macros are strings of keystrokes, and its windowing features are >limited. But it is a real word processor, designed for writers, and it >starts up *instantly* and runs fast on even an XT. Hmm... I've seen this around, but never tried it. I note that there is also a "lite" version. I'll check it out. >Personal Editor III, available from Personally Developed Software (phone: >1-800-IBM-PCSW), satisfies most if not all of your criteria. I have used >PE2, and it had all the features you want but the full-blown macro >language. PE3 might have added that, but I have no data. Does it have regular expressions and a full undo capability? This raises an interesting point that I didn't think of when I posted the original message. It seems to me that a full undo capability is especially desirable (even necessary) in any editor that supports regular expressions. This is because an error in a regexp search and replace can really louse up a document royally, often in ways that are not at all simple to undo manually. This is the main shortcoming of micro-emacs, in my view (otherwise, it is excellent). >For writing a book, I suggest you use an actual word processor -- either >PC-Write or Microsoft Word 5.5. Word 5.5 is better in many ways, but >costs more; PC-Write is shareware, and you can pay as little as $15 to use >it legally forever. Again, the irony is that what you pay for in most high-end word processing programs is a lot of powerful formatting tools: the ability to put footnotes at the bottom of a page, to do on-screen multi-column formatting, italics, fancy fonts, etc. This stuff is great for reports and things that you essentially are going to "publish" yourself. If you are submitting work to a publisher, however, most like to receive a floppy disk with pure ascii files. -- Todd Moody * tmoody@sjuphil.sju.edu "In what furnace was thy brain?" -- William Blake
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (03/06/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: na Reply-To: tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) Organization: Novell, Inc. San Jose, California References: <1991Feb15.032234.4724@sjuphil.uucp> <70729@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Feb25.153922.10493@sjuphil.uucp> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 22:00:11 GMT In article <1991Feb25.153922.10493@sjuphil.uucp> tmoody@sjuphil.UUCP (T. Moody) writes: >I have used Word 5.0, at least, for correspondence and reports. >Frankly, it seems a bit expensive to be used as an ascii editor, and it >is *very* slow loading on my XT. Also, when a file is saved as ascii, >it puts carriage returns at the end of each line, so that you can't >readily reformat the paragraphs after modifying them. I suppose a macro >could take care of this, however. Under "Transfer-Save" you have three options: 1. Word format 2. Text-only 3. Text-with-line-breaks If you use text only, hard returns will NOT be appended. No macro is necessary (although I still put it in a macro for speed only). The default Ctrl-SA macro that comes with Word is a "Save with line breaks" type of ascii save, not "pure" ascii. You can modify that macro, and it will take care of it. Frankly, I still think that is a terrible way to write a text file, particularly on an XT. I use QEdit to type the text in, and *then*, when it's done, I feed it into Word and strip the hard returns off the line ends (except end of paragraphs) in the whole document with one macro. That only requires that I separate paragraphs with a blank line when I originally type the text in. Try it, or email me. Tony
guest@first_next (Gast) (03/19/91)
This message is empty.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
Well, I used to run Brief on a two-floppy system. I had a sys disk with brief and the brief compiler on it, and I'd use that to build the brief startup files on another sys disk. That way I had room for brief, the startup files, and the lattice C compiler on A:, and the stuff I was working on and the appropriate memory model libraries on B:. I'd actually compile to objects and executables in RAM C:. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"