Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

text editors (in memory of Steve) (Announce)

posted by Dennis(R), 06.04.2009, 04:22

> > > The problem with Yahoo! is that, IIRC, attachments are limited to 10
> > > MB (instead of 20 MB for Gmail).
> >
> > That doesn't concern me. A lot of email servers out there have even
> > lower limits. I try to make sure the recipient can receive the
> > files I attach. GMail is at the high end allowing 20MB. Most don't.
>
> Yes, I know, and it's not like I ever send many file attachments anyways,
> just something to be aware of. I think the bottom of the rung (no offense
> to anybody, it's just usually pretty arbitrary what limits you have on
> computer software) is 1 MB attachments max. That's why I usually ask
> before sending attachments although most people don't mind anyways.

I used to have all sorts of problems with users blithely attaching files in email with no clue about how large they actually were, then wondering what happened when it didn't go through. I once had a user attach a 30MB file in email to a remote office. What she didn't know was that that office's connection was via a 33.6 modem. I had to kill the transfer at the mail server, then explain the facts of email life to her.

> > Ah. Thanks for the new e3. I have it here, because I collect tiny
> > editors.
>
> The e3 site (if you can call it that, only two links) is back up now. I

I don't believe that one was ever down. The site I meant was http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/, which is "up", but returns a blank screen when accessed.

> meant to also point you to sources on my site "just in case", so here:
> e3-271.tgz. I don't

Thank you.

> think e3 will be maintained anymore, sadly. The 16-bit DOS version is
> pretty crappy, though (if I am allowed to say that without offending the
> author, heh): 32k file limit, not *nix LF friendly. IIRC, I probably
> mentioned on texteditors.org about using HXRT with the Win9x version
> (which WinXP and friends don't run correctly at all, go figure!). Still,
> just like FASM, e3 is cool because it's portable to so many OSes.

I was more interested in the multiple personalities, letting it look like WS, vi, Pico, and a few other things. A 4K core, and a ~20K overlay for personalities. You could actually just run the 4K core, and have a functional editor with WS keymaps.

> > It's also used in Puppy Linux. That distro wants to keep the ISO size
> > under 100MB, and does various things to save space. e3 is linked as
> vi.
>
> I assume XVI would be a better fit (still small but useful). Some others

<shrug> It's a matter of what Puppy creator Barry Kaufer found back when. Puppy also uses Minimum Profit in some cases, which is an interesting editor with scripting ability. It would be nice if it settled on one, but some scripts are coded to call e3 as vi, and some to call mp, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

> I've seen use an older version of Elvis, which is relatively small too.
> And, as mentioned, most GNU/Linux distros include Vim-tiny. Heck, JED is a

The ones I know of all include full Vim.

> very good Emacs clone and can emulate vi too (while not barely topping 2 MB
> unpacked for the DOS port). Not bad, if you ask me.

Not bad at all. I looked at and respect JED.

> > > > > I have some comparison notes about various DOS editors that I've
> > > > > been making for a while now, might post it online fairly soon
> > > > > just for laughs.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to see it. Feel free to add it to TextEditors.org. It's
> > > > the sort of thing the site was made for.
> > >
> > > I'll dig it up for you, but I'm not sure how it would fit into the
> > > setup of TextEditors. (It's mostly just a huge bunch of comments
> > > in a .BAT file.)
> >
> > Send it along, and I'll see about editing for format.
>
> I'll take a quick look later tonight and try uploading it tomorrow.

Thanks!

> > > > One Windows, I use Notepad++ for most things. On Unix/Linux, I use
> > > > vi/vim, though I use Emacs on occasion, and I'm becoming fond of
> > > > Geany in X sessions under Linux.
>
> Mousepad, Beaver, Ted, Kate, mc's editor, Nano, etc. seem to be popular on
> Linux.

I had an IT Director boss who used Nano by preference. He couldn't stand the design of vi. :-P

Mousepad is the default editor for the XFCE window manager/desktop environment. It's a little too minimal for my taste.

> BTW, do I remember incorrectly, or is Notepad++ the #1 Sourceforge
> project now?

I haven't looked, but you may well be right. It's a very fine piece of code, regularly enhanced. The one thing it lacks is a scripting facility.

There are a number of editors like Notespad based on the Scintilla edit control. Geany, the standard GUI editor on Puppy Linux, is another.

> > > As you may know, TDE works on DOS (16-bit or 32-bit), Win32 console,
> > > and Linux w/ ncurses. Not that I ever use Linux much, and it never comes
> > > default so I built my own binary (which I always forget to use).

I'm aware, but haven't gotten to the point of building a binary for Linux.

> > > Vim-tiny seems default on most GNU/Linux distros (although gNewSense
> > > includes GNU Emacs, thankfully).

Most distros have Gnu Emacs available as a package, so it's easy enough to add it if it doesn't come as part of the base install.

I prefer vi, but that's a side-effect of using Unix since the 80s when vi was what it came with.

> > Yes, I have and use TDE under Win32 console. Haven't moved it to Linux
> > yet.
>
> If you have libncurses-dev, you can build it yourself (although not all
> distros have that).

I think I do, but getting a build environment set up for Puppy is slighly complex, and I wouldn't do it on the Lifebook in any case. I'd grow old and grey waiting for a build to finish. If I have sufficient reason, I'll put Puppy up in multi-boot mode on my desktop alongside Win2K, WinXP, and Kubuntu, and set up the development environment there.

> > > That predates me a bit. :-)) But I imagine you mean something like
> > > Forth block editors (or not, who knows, EDT? heh).
> >
> > Neither.
> >
> > 3270 terminals were block mode, not character mode. In normal editing on
> > character mode terminals, each char you type is sent is sent immediately
> > to the host.
> >
> > On a block mode terminal, when you were editing, you could move around
> > to screen and change things, but that all happened locally. When you hit
> > Enter (might have been called Submit or something), the entire
> > screen was sent to the host.
>
> Wacky. But that sounds like something I've read before too. It's almost

<shrug> It's IBM. You got used to it.

> like when I read Bill Joy say, "vi was a product of the times, not really
> needed anymore" (e.g. fast screen updates remotely over terminal or
> whatever).

Bill was developing vi back when his home connection to the host at UC Berkeley was a 300 baud dial-up modem, so there was a premium on efficient screen handling. For that matter, Unix was developed when the normal interface the the host was a dialup hardcopy terminal. The terse command syntax was in part an effort to get maximum results from minimum typing.

Vi and WordStar share a common design characteristic: they are terminal independent. If you have a QWERTY keyboard and a Control key, you can use them. In the case of Unix, some of the early terminals used to connect to Unix systems didn't have F-keys or arrow keys, and the same was true of keyboards on some old CP/M systems.

> But obviously almost nobody uses vanilla vi, only the extended
> variants (mostly Elvis or VILE or VIM, especially VIM, the topic for 99%
> of posts on news://comp.editors !!).

And for good reason. :)

The original vi is now open source: http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/
______
Dennis

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15157 Postings in 1361 Threads, 250 registered users, 12 users online (0 registered, 12 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum