Re: [dev] Plain text editor that sucks less - an alternative to VIM?

From: Ryan O’Hara <rninty_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:41:27 -0700

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Lee F. <REMOVED_UPON_REQUEST_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> This may not be an alternative to VIM, but it is inspired by its
> ancestor vi, and other editors like ed, sam, and acme. It is a
> graphical text editor. The main reason why I choose graphical is
> because TUIs are just a hack of GUIs. Seriously, look at the
> screenshots posted at the beginning- why would anyone use that? There
> is a framebuffer driver on most modern OSs that work to have some sort
> of graphical capability. It has two "modes", regular text input mode
> that supports UNIX bindings (ctrl+e/a/u/h), and a "command-line" mode,
> that brings up a command-line. You can select text and pipe it to any
> command you type in there (as long as it can accept input from STDIN).
> This alone makes the editor really powerful, because it opens up your
> entire system for use. It has no support for syntax highlighting
> (personally I find it annoying and I find I understand code better
> than having to rely on the highlighting to tell me what is and what is
> not correct); auto-complete is not supported, but is extremely
> practical when working with Java/C#/C++/etc- I never code in those
> languages without their respective IDEs (Eclipse, Visual Studio,
> SomeMassiveIDEThatSupportsEverything), because it's almost impossible
> unless you've worked with them for a long time; does not support
> window management which means no tabbing, windows in windows and other
> non-sense, all window management is done by the window manager.

A Tk textbox with four extra Emacs bindings and something to run shell commands?
At least vi is portable…
Received on Mon Jun 30 2014 - 22:41:27 CEST