filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) (06/06/89)
I'm sure I'll be roundly flamed for wanting to use the "evil" editor WordStar,
but I find it quite efficient and it is ingrained into my fingers. VI drives
me insane; EMACS is too slow and bulky to use on any of the systems I use.
What I want is a >simple< WordStar "clone" -- something akin to WordStar
version 3.3, or the editors found in Borland products such as SideKick and
Turbo Pascal. (Ideal would be a port of Kim Kokkonen's "TPE", but moving it
from Turbo Pascal/MS-DOS to C/UNIX does not sound like an appealing project
(!)). I realize that there are configurable editors out there; what I want
is both the keystrokes >and< the behavior of WordStar. I've attempted to
configure editors to my preferences in the past, and the results are never
very good unless the underlying assumptions are the same.
The systems on which I'd like to run it are: a Sun 3/50 with SunOS 4.0; a 386
box running XENIX 2.3, soon 3.2; an ISI (I believe) running 4.2BSD. If you
know of an appropriate program, please mail me an FTP address, archive server
location, or whatever. If you are also looking for such a program, MAIL me
("r" command in rn) rather than posting, and I will let you know of anything
I find. Remember, nobody cares but us WS weirdos. ;-}
* * Bela Lubkin filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (preferred)
* * @ filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us
* R Pentomino Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl, (408) 476-4633mlindsey@x102c.harris-atd.com (Lindsey MS 04396) (06/06/89)
In article <26464@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes: >What I want is a >simple< WordStar "clone" -- something akin to WordStar >version 3.3, or the editors found in Borland products such as SideKick and >Turbo Pascal. >The systems on which I'd like to run it are: a Sun 3/50 with SunOS 4.0; a 386 >box running XENIX 2.3, soon 3.2; an ISI (I believe) running 4.2BSD. There is a company in Sarasota, Florida who makes a WordStar-like package called Fenix. Their address and phone number are: Fenix Software PO Box 15649 Sarasota, Florida 34277 (813) 351-5532 * FAX (813) 365-7999 "The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad" S. Dali "If the shoe fits, buy it!" Imelda Marcos. Steve Lindsey |-) uunet!x102a!mlindsey (407) 727-5893 :-) mlindsey@x102a.harris-atd.com
chuckb@hounix.UUCP (Chuck Bentley) (06/10/89)
> In article <26464@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes: >What I want is a >simple< WordStar "clone" -- something akin to WordStar . Some time ago I remember seeing emacs running like WS. The guy told me he simpley customized the keys the way he wanted. Chuck...
filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) (06/10/89)
In article <1309@hounix.UUCP> chuckb@hounix.UUCP (Chuck Bentley) writes: >Some time ago I remember seeing emacs running like WS. The guy told me >he simpley customized the keys the way he wanted. There are two problems with this: EMACS is huge, and it doesn't act like WS. That is, I can bind the right keys to the right actions, but they won't do exactly the right things. This really throws me when I go back and forth between systems (and editors). e.g. in WS, blocks are marked as character streams; when a block is moved or copied, the block markers move to mark the moved/new copy; etc. There are dozens or hundreds of small behaviors like this which could be simulated in a programmable editor like EMACS, but at the expense of programming time, bugs, etc. I've done this before with "DME" under AmigaDOS. The results are decent but not very good, and some operations have to be simulated at a character-by-character level, in DME code, which makes them very slow. I now have about 10 requests for information, and one lead from a programmer who says he has an MS-DOS WS clone that is in portable C and might be brought over to UNIX. I've asked his permission to forward that message, or a new message specifically written for the purpose, to those who have requested information; I haven't gotten a response yet. I've also been told of a commercial package called Fenix. Does anyone know what it is, what it costs, etc.? A commercial package is probably not going to help -- I'm certainly not going to pay to have it put up on 3 different systems that I use -- but I'd like to know more anyway. What is the SIMPLEST full-screen editor available for UNIX, with source? I can write an editor, but not under UNIX. Memory and file management, termcap and curses would all be new to me. Examining a simple editor would give me an idea how difficult it would be to write this thing. I am astonished that no CP/M or MS-DOS programmer, frustrated with VI and EMACS, has yet written a simple WS-based programmer's editor (akin to the Turbo language editors). I'm cross-posting this to alt.msdos-programmer, but please direct followups to comp.editors only.
trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) (06/11/89)
In article <6%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes: >What is the SIMPLEST full-screen editor available for UNIX, with source? I can >write an editor, but not under UNIX. Memory and file management, termcap and >curses would all be new to me. Examining a simple editor would give me an idea >how difficult it would be to write this thing. I recently released my folding editor (FOLDED) to mn.sources (needed local abuse first). This editor is around 6000 lines of code and currently has been tested on the IBM PC, Atari ST (TOS and MINIX), and a number of BSD 4.2 and SYS5 sites. It uses a vi-like command set, but I recently was able to simulate a rudimentary emacs/wordstar interface by adding only 40 lines of code (simulating the full command set from the Turbo Pascal manual didn't look too hard). I used Turbo Pascal for years and found that I used the editor for most of my PC text editing, however I never felt that the key sequences were all that good. A question: Do you really want to have the exact key sequences or just the functionality of such an editor? For those of you who requested the sources for FOLDED...I'll shar together version 0.9d and forward it to comp.sources.unix this week. The 1.0 release (later this summer) will be toggleable between vi-like and emacs-like modes (I need to do some code cleanup first). -Todd Burkey pwcs!stag!trb
filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) (06/12/89)
In article <868@stag.UUCP> trb%stag@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Todd Burkey) writes: > I recently released my folding editor (FOLDED) to mn.sources (needed > local abuse first). This editor is around 6000 lines of code and > currently has been tested on the IBM PC, Atari ST (TOS and MINIX), and > a number of BSD 4.2 and SYS5 sites. It uses a vi-like command set, but I > recently was able to simulate a rudimentary emacs/wordstar interface > by adding only 40 lines of code (simulating the full command set from > the Turbo Pascal manual didn't look too hard). I used Turbo Pascal for > years and found that I used the editor for most of my PC text editing, > however I never felt that the key sequences were all that good. A > question: Do you really want to have the exact key sequences or just > the functionality of such an editor? Both; but as far as I'm concerned, the key sequences can be folded into the functionality. Having used the Turbo Pascal editor, you must be aware that it allows you to install the keyboard sequences to your preferences. >That< would be best: if the keyboard sequences were installable. I'm sure that would make the EMACS partisans feel a lot better as well. I'll certainly look for the sources on comp.sources.unix; I will look at going in and adding a full WS mode, which you can then distribute along with the others... >Bela< PS: do you know stag!omni!emh?
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (06/12/89)
In article <6%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes: >I am astonished that no CP/M or MS-DOS programmer, frustrated with VI and >EMACS, has yet written a simple WS-based programmer's editor (akin to the >Turbo language editors). I'm cross-posting this to alt.msdos-programmer, but >please direct followups to comp.editors only. For several years, when I was writing code on a UNIX system, I did most of my editing locally on a CP/M machine using WS, then uploading the file for compilation (personally, I always felt I was *downloading* the file, based on observed system performance!). Editing over a serial port on a time sharing system is such a drag compared to direct screen updates, and WS on my old CP/M box was *fast*, unlike the first WS versions that came out later for the IBM/PC. BTW, now I have thrown in the towel and use Unipress EMACS on UNIX systems which have the license, Microemacs on UNIX systems that don't, Epsilon on a PC Clone, and (on few rare occasions) MINCE (an EMACS clone) on the old CP/M box. Epsilon gets about 99% of the use. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
lth@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Lars Thomas Hansen) (06/13/89)
In article <6%filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> filbo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Bela Lubkin) writes: >I am astonished that no CP/M or MS-DOS programmer, frustrated with VI and >EMACS, has yet written a simple WS-based programmer's editor (akin to the >Turbo language editors). I am one of those CP/M *and* MS-DOS programmers, and I grew up with WS. I thought it was the greatest editor there could possibly be. What more could a programmer want in an editor? As it turned out, programmers want a lot more. The ability to edit several files at once, for example, is something I (now) demand from my editor. To have several views of the same file is also practical in certain situations. I have switched to using EMACS on this machine (a VAX under BSD4.3) and I use MicroEMACS on my PC. You'd be amazed at the amount of trouble I go through to avoid the Turbo editors... More to the point, it is a question of POWER -- WordStar, however nice it might be (I still use it for wordprocessing :-) is simply not powerful enough to perform all the services that a programmer wants from his(her) editor, especially when that programmer has been spoiled with EMACS or an equal editor. [However, solutions have been found: A company I know of, used to using WS for editing work, acknowledged that WS was not powerful enough, and instead of switching editors they wrote a multi-view multi-file WS-clone.] If you program under CP/M you might not find EMACS or its relatives available to you. Otherwise, I'd rather suggest you switch editors than try to look for an (elusive) WS-clone. --lars
jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen) (06/13/89)
In article <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> lth@drizzle.UUCP (Lars Thomas Hansen) writes: >If you program under CP/M you might not find EMACS or its relatives >available to you. Otherwise, I'd rather suggest you switch editors than >try to look for an (elusive) WS-clone. I recall working on a CP/M system about 6 years ago and being introduced to a new editor called Star Edit. As I was used to WordStar, I never really liked the switch over to the new control keys, and never used it for any serious editing. Only after another 3 years, after being exposed to Emacs in college, did I realize what this editor was: an Emacs clone. It had even the same tutorial file, with all the occurences of "Emacs" M-x replace-string'ed with "Star Edit". Now I use Epsilon (Emacs clone) in MS-DOS. I'm not switching back to slow, non-multiple-file-handling WordStar again -- "Give me Emacs or give me death" :-) John. _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John K{llen "If she weighs the same as a | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 a duck...she's made of wood" | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 "And therefore?" "A WITCH!" _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________
julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) (06/13/89)
In article <868@stag.UUCP> trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) writes: >I used Turbo Pascal for years and found that I used the editor >for most of my PC text editing, however I never felt that the >key sequences were all that good. A question: Do you really want >to have the exact key sequences or just the functionality of >such an editor? Having a WordStar clone on Unix would make it much easier for novices to edit files, and I'm sure it would be an instant hit among freely distributable editor programs. It may not have the most ideal keyboard mapping, but it is extremely well-known and has the advantage of using the diamond pattern for the four basic cursor motion commands, which makes it easy to remember. I've never met anyone who has used a computer for text processing and not known WordStar. Writing a simple WordStar clone might be great project for someone who wants to be famous pretty fast :-). julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu | "Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role uunet!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!julian | in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. julian@uhccux.bitnet | It is part of the United States that is an University of Hawaii at Manoa | island that is right here." - Quayle
h3x2@tank.uchicago.edu (andrew abrams shapiro) (06/14/89)
In article <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> lth@drizzle.UUCP (Lars Thomas Hansen) writes: >If you program under CP/M you might not find EMACS or its relatives >available to you. Otherwise, I'd rather suggest you switch editors than >try to look for an (elusive) WS-clone. EMACS lives in CP/M under the name of Perfect Writer. PW was sold as a text processor with a bad formatter and passable spell checker, but the editor, PW.COM, is an EMACS (really MINCE) that works qyu// quite well. It came wiuth all '83 Kaypro amchines (sorry -- the POC PC I'm using oesn't emulate a VT100 well enough for corrections!) and is very nice. It has windowing and will handle up to 7 files at once. Not bad, considering that wi it will run in less than 50K oif RAM!
wxh@alpha.lanl.gov (Billy Harvey) (06/14/89)
In article <4095@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) writes: > Having a WordStar clone on Unix would make it much easier for > novices to edit files, and I'm sure it would be an instant hit > > Writing a simple WordStar clone might be great project for > someone who wants to be famous pretty fast :-). > I believe a WS look-alike could "easily" be written in the emacs programming language. I think a not-too-old article by Jerry Pournelle in Byte said something about a commercial version of emacs with a WS clone user-interface available. The emacs programming language is powerful enough to emulate probably almost any other editor. I'll try to find which issue of Byte it was. Meanwhile, perhaps someone who reads the emacs netnews regularly could ask about a WS interface in that newsgroup and get back to us here. Billy Harvey wxh@a.lanl.gov
catone@dsl.cis.upenn.edu (Tony Catone) (06/29/89)
In article <3809@tank.uchicago.edu> h3x2@tank.uchicago.edu (andrew abrams shapiro) writes: >In article <4893@uoregon.uoregon.edu> lth@drizzle.UUCP (Lars Thomas Hansen) writes: > >>If you program under CP/M you might not find EMACS or its relatives >>available to you. Otherwise, I'd rather suggest you switch editors than >>try to look for an (elusive) WS-clone. > >EMACS lives in CP/M under the name of Perfect Writer. PW was sold as >a text processor with a bad formatter and passable spell checker, but >the editor, PW.COM, is an EMACS (really MINCE) that works qyu// quite >well. It came wiuth all '83 Kaypro amchines (sorry -- the POC PC I'm >using oesn't emulate a VT100 well enough for corrections!) and is >very nice. It has windowing and will handle up to 7 files at once. >Not bad, considering that wi it will run in less than 50K oif RAM! The folks who originally hacked up MINCE and sold the rights to market it as Perfect Writer later revised the product and marketed it themselves as FinalWord. Versions through 1.19 were available for both MS-DOS and CP/M. It had a *lot* less bugs than Perfect Writer (the PW people were just marketing types) though you needed a seperate third party spell checker of your choice. The company used to be called Mark of the Unicorn, but they changed their name to FinalWord Corp. after the release of FinalWord II. The last version released was 2.20, and this is my favorite editor in the entire world. *Fully* reconfigurable, even down to customizable pull down menus; programmable macro language with recursion; integrated spell checker; edit up to 23 files in up to 6 windows; horizontal scrolling with a maximum line length of 32,000 characters; editor swap file to protect against accidental power losses; on and on. This is the editor that Borland bought and hacked up into Sprint, which we have in the office but I don't like as much, though it may grow on me over time. Versions of the old FW I are available *cheap*; the Computer Connection at Penn was hocking them at $10 a pop. Don't know if there were any CP/M copies there; if anyone cares, I can check. FinalWord Corp. was based in Cambridge, and there may be remnants of them there, I don't know. - Tony catone@dsl.cis.upenn.edu catone@wharton.upenn.edu