cur022%cluster@ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) (04/11/91)
In article <cs352a41.671291368@zippy>, cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Class login) writes: > jearly@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (John Early) writes: > WordStar would be able to edit it. EDLIN would LET YOU THINK that you were > editing the whole thing, when in fact, you would only be editing 40,000 (or > was it 4,000) lines--if you saved, you would effectively truncate the file. > Not true. EDLIN reads in the file in chunks. Edit what you want in the first chunk, use the W command to write it out, use A to read in some more.... I don't claim it's easy. But it works. And, if you issue the E command to exit, it does copy the rest of the input file across. The person who inquired could look at an editor called the Technical Editor, available on SIMTEL20 as TE25.ZIP (not sure of the directory). It's shareware, $35 ($45 with source). It will edit files up to 32MB. -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Bob Eager | University of Kent at Canterbury | +44 227 764000 ext 7589 -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
krouse-p@liter.cis.ohio-state.edu (Pierce Krouse) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr10.184259.2993@demott.com> kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: > Brief is an excellent editor, but (IMNSHO) Epsilon is much better. >Version 5 can split screen vertically as well as horizontally, scroll >horizontally, edit and manipulate rectangular regions of text. The >extension language is C-like, and most of the editor is written in the >extension language (sources and compiler provided). Hmmm .. not one to knock Epsilon, having never used it, but BRIEF will do all the things you mention above. How is Epsilon better? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying in the features list above. I'm just curious as to the differences that must exist.
jln@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) (04/12/91)
In article <106457@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> krouse-p@liter.cis.ohio-state.edu (Pierce Krouse) writes: >Hmmm .. not one to knock Epsilon, having never used it, but BRIEF will do all >the things you mention above. How is Epsilon better? Maybe I misunderstand >what you are saying in the features list above. I'm just curious as to the >differences that must exist. Epsilon is emacs-like. Consequently, you can control the cursor motions without having to move your hands from your typing position, whereas with brief, you end up moving your right hand over to the cursor pad and then having to re-align your right hand with the keyboard. In Epsilon (or emacs), you use commands like c-f (control-f) to go forward, c-d to delete, etc. This takes some time to learn, but can be quite efficient after you've learned it. (Of course, you could probably customize Brief to behave similarly to many emacs commands.) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jared L. Nedzel nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) (04/12/91)
In article <106457@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> krouse-p@liter.cis.ohio-state.edu (Pierce Krouse) writes: >Hmmm .. not one to knock Epsilon, having never used it, but BRIEF will do all >the things you mention above. How is Epsilon better? Maybe I misunderstand >what you are saying in the features list above. I'm just curious as to the >differences that must exist. Key bindings are basically emacs', extension language is C-like. It's been several years since I've used Brief, and I don't really knock it - it's a good editor, but I don't like the user interface (personal taste only). -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr10.160159.11372@novell.com>, tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) wrote: }The News Manager) }In article <1491@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU> jearly@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (John Early) writes: }>Last night I wanted to edit a DOS file that was 1243651 bytes long. I only }>found one real editor in my collection that would do it: Borland's Sprint. } }Brief will edit it, Sage will, even though I am not crazy of }either. Question: How many times do you have a file of this size to }work with? I think I would rather stick to my "limited to memory" and }fast like a lightning editor and use a word processor in a text-only }mode for those rare events when I have an elephant to edit. There is a }good chance some of those editors will start making use of 386 ability }to address extended memory, and all the problems will be over. Why not have both speed and unlimited file size? Epsilon will search through an entire 1 meg file (for a nonexistent string) in only 1.5 seconds on my 386, and uses EMS memory if available for storing the files you are working on (it can also swap to one or more disks if needed). For files which Qedit can handle, Epsilon is just as fast as Qedit, and in fact loads the files more quickly. -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers
jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr10.184259.2993@demott.com> kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: > Brief is an excellent editor, but (IMNSHO) Epsilon is much better. >Version 5 can split screen vertically as well as horizontally, scroll >horizontally, edit and manipulate rectangular regions of text. The >extension language is C-like, and most of the editor is written in the >extension language (sources and compiler provided). Brief can also split the screen both ways, scroll vertically and horizontally, manipulate rectangular regions of text. It has two macro languages: the original LISP-like macro language and the new C-like macro language. Just like Epsilon, a large part of Brief is written in the extension langauage, and the compiler and source is provided. Brief has a much more intuitive user interface than the EMACS interface Epsilon uses. And the recently released Brief 3.1 has mouse support. -- Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134 Help stamp out vi in our lifetime. (408) 432-6200
kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) (04/13/91)
In article <4803@gumby.Altos.COM> jerry@altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) writes: > >Brief has a much more intuitive user interface than the EMACS interface >Epsilon uses. And the recently released Brief 3.1 has mouse support. Actually, the user interface is what I like least about Brief. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
salaman@upr2.clu.net (Victor Salaman) (04/14/91)
In article <2805be69@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >In article <1991Apr10.160159.11372@novell.com>, tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) wrote: >}The News Manager) >}In article <1491@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU> jearly@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (John Early) writes: >}>Last night I wanted to edit a DOS file that was 1243651 bytes long. I only >}>found one real editor in my collection that would do it: Borland's Sprint. >} >}Brief will edit it, Sage will, even though I am not crazy of >}either. Question: How many times do you have a file of this size to >}work with? I think I would rather stick to my "limited to memory" and >}fast like a lightning editor and use a word processor in a text-only >}mode for those rare events when I have an elephant to edit. There is a >}good chance some of those editors will start making use of 386 ability >}to address extended memory, and all the problems will be over. > >Why not have both speed and unlimited file size? Epsilon will search >through an entire 1 meg file (for a nonexistent string) in only 1.5 >seconds on my 386, and uses EMS memory if available for storing the >files you are working on (it can also swap to one or more disks if >needed). For files which Qedit can handle, Epsilon is just as fast as >Qedit, and in fact loads the files more quickly. > >-- >{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 >BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask >DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's >I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers is Epsilon a {shareware|freeware|pd|peeware} program? and Where can I get it? Thanks. .
ralf+@cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (04/15/91)
In article <1991Apr14.101929.21388@upr2.clu.net> salaman@upr2.clu.net (Victor Salaman) writes: }is Epsilon a {shareware|freeware|pd|peeware} program? and Where can I get it? Payware. You can ask your favorite software dealer (who will probably have it for less than the $195 list price), or call/write: Lugaru Software 5843 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15217 (412) 421-5911 -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers
hnridder@cs.ruu.nl (Ernst de Ridder) (04/15/91)
In <4803@gumby.Altos.COM> jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) writes: >like Epsilon, a large part of Brief is written in the extension langauage, >and the compiler and source is provided. In Epsilon the division between user and kernel-layer is neater (at least when I examined Brief, about 1.5 yrs ago). EEL (Epsilon Extension Language) is (was) faster than the Brief extension language. >brief has a much more intuitive user interface than the EMACS interface >Epsilon uses. And the recently released Brief 3.1 has mouse support. "intuitive" is a matter of personal taste and also a real buzz word: nowadays, every program is called intuitive. The "intuitive user interface" was invented when programmers discovered that most users prefer simplicity above power. I sometimes wonder whether anybody understands the meaning and importance of it. I never saw a power-program which can be used intuitively (using your intuition instead of the manual/your memory). I did encounter programs which are easier to learn than others. And I do prefer spending some time learning a great tool, then being able to use something powerless without learning it; I just would miss the features. But to return to Brief <--> Epsilon: Using Emacs-style keybindings it is possible to touchtype, which is faster than looking at the keyboard and using two fingers. Another advantage is minimal dependance on the keyboard layout and the wide range of emacs-style editors that is available. (easier to move to another platform). In editors, mice are a Crime with capital C. When you edit, you've got your fingers on the keyboard and your eyes on the screen or a paper (normally). It really slows down to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse, moving it, and then repositioning your hand at the keyboard. Mice are NOT NEEDED in a good editor. Ernst P.S. I know above doesn't sound friendly and does sound a bit arrogant, but I'm just getting sick of the talk about user-friendliness, mice and intuitive user-interfaces. Please take no offence. -- Qualitas qualitatem inducit. Semper ego qualitatem. popa iret
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr11.231058.12652@demott.com> kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >In article <106457@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> krouse-p@liter.cis.ohio-state.edu (Pierce Krouse) writes: >>Hmmm .. not one to knock Epsilon, having never used it, but BRIEF will do all >>the things you mention above. How is Epsilon better? Maybe I misunderstand >>what you are saying in the features list above. I'm just curious as to the >>differences that must exist. > Sounds like this could be another matter of taste type arguments like UNIX vs. MAC vs. DOS. Everybody has their own opinions, basically the RIGHT editor is what you feel comfortable with. Personally I like the new Windows 3.0 port of micro-emacs. When under windows I MUST have a true Windows app editor so that I can use the mouse and such. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
dougs@videovax.tv.tek.com (Doug Stevens) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr15.093654.13172@cs.ruu.nl>, hnridder@cs.ruu.nl (Ernst de Ridder) writes: > In editors, mice are a Crime with capital C ... > Mice are NOT NEEDED in a good editor. There's no reason that an editor cannot include both mouse and key support. I use both: keystrokes for executing commands (I really don't care for pull-down menus, they are much too slow), and the mouse for marking areas of text (leaning on the cursor key, over-shooting, and backing up is too slow). The only thing that irks me is when an editor requires me to use the tool which is more cumbersome for the task at hand.