text editor suggestion?

[John Salerno]

Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post. I've tried a
few different editors, and I really like UltraEdit, but it's
Windows-only and I'm working more on Linux nowadays.

Here are my criteria:

1. syntax highlighting (highly customizable)
2. auto/smart indenting
3. ability to run script
4. light-weight text editor, not an IDE
5. cross-platform (not really necessary, but nice)

That's pretty much all I need. It's nice when you can customize a bunch
of other stuff too, but those are the most important.

I've tried vim, but I really don't feel like taking the time to learn
how to use it, given that I just like to casually program (not to
mention that I prefer to use the mouse when navigating a document
sometimes).

I also just started using Scite, and I really like it, except I find its
syntax highlighting to be very inflexible. You aren't able to define
your own groups of words -- you have to use what's given, basically. One
thing I like about UltraEdit is that you simply define as many groups of
keywords as you want and then assign a style to each one. Scite has a
very strange and rigid method of highlighting.

So hopefully some of you might have some suggestions. My requirements
are minimal, but I'm still not happy with the syntax highlighting I'm
seeing in a lot of editors out there.

[nemesian]

Have you tried Notepad++? It's a neat text-editor.

[Ben Finney]

John Salerno <jo******@NOSPA Mgmail.comwrite s:

Here are my criteria:

1. syntax highlighting (highly customizable)
2. auto/smart indenting
3. ability to run script
4. light-weight text editor, not an IDE
5. cross-platform (not really necessary, but nice)

The two big names in text editing, Vim and Emacs, will both meet these
criteria easily. They also have the advantage that you'll find one or
the other, or both, on just about any Unix system intended for use by
a programmer.

I've tried vim, but I really don't feel like taking the time to learn
how to use it, given that I just like to casually program (not to
mention that I prefer to use the mouse when navigating a document
sometimes).

Both Vim and Emacs operate fine with the mouse, if asked to do so.

For Emacs, you simply run it in the context of an windowing
environment and it will use a bitmapped graphical window.

For Vim, you need to run 'gvim' to get the bitmapped window (later
versions may attempt to do this by default, I'm not sure).

There is also an enormous amount of support for both these editors,
for all manner of text editing tasks, available online. It's a good
idea to learn at least one of them very well, rather than learn a
bunch of less-popular editors for specific tasks.

--
\ "I saw a sign: 'Rest Area 25 Miles'. That's pretty big. Some |
`\ people must be really tired." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[Simon Forman]

John Salerno wrote:

Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post. I've tried a
few different editors, and I really like UltraEdit, but it's
Windows-only and I'm working more on Linux nowadays.

Here are my criteria:

1. syntax highlighting (highly customizable)
2. auto/smart indenting
3. ability to run script
4. light-weight text editor, not an IDE
5. cross-platform (not really necessary, but nice)

That's pretty much all I need. It's nice when you can customize a bunch
of other stuff too, but those are the most important.

I've tried vim, but I really don't feel like taking the time to learn
how to use it, given that I just like to casually program (not to
mention that I prefer to use the mouse when navigating a document
sometimes).

I also just started using Scite, and I really like it, except I find its
syntax highlighting to be very inflexible. You aren't able to define
your own groups of words -- you have to use what's given, basically. One
thing I like about UltraEdit is that you simply define as many groups of
keywords as you want and then assign a style to each one. Scite has a
very strange and rigid method of highlighting.

So hopefully some of you might have some suggestions. My requirements
are minimal, but I'm still not happy with the syntax highlighting I'm
seeing in a lot of editors out there.

Have you tried IDLE? It ships with python, meets your 5 criteria(*),
can be customized (highlighting colors and command keys and more), and
includes a usable GUI debugger. It's got some warts, but I like it a
lot, it's pretty much all I use for my python coding.

http://www.python.org/idle/

(* It *is* an IDE, but a very lightweight one. :) )

[Paul Rubin]

"Simon Forman" <ro*********@ya hoo.comwrites:

Have you tried IDLE? It ships with python, meets your 5 criteria(*),
can be customized (highlighting colors and command keys and more), and
includes a usable GUI debugger. It's got some warts, but I like it a
lot, it's pretty much all I use for my python coding.

I use it too, but have never gotten the debugger to work reliably.

[David Isaac]

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/soft.htm#EDITORS

has some relevant discussion and suggestions.

Cheers,

Alan Isaac

[Simon Forman]

Paul Rubin wrote:

"Simon Forman" <ro*********@ya hoo.comwrites:

Have you tried IDLE? It ships with python, meets your 5 criteria(*),
can be customized (highlighting colors and command keys and more), and
includes a usable GUI debugger. It's got some warts, but I like it a
lot, it's pretty much all I use for my python coding.

I use it too, but have never gotten the debugger to work reliably.

I'm curious about what you mean? It doesn't do all I'd wish for, but
I've never had any real problem with it. (It's bicyclerepairma n I
haven't been able to get working. lol)

Peace,
~Simon

[OriginalBrownster]

John Salerno wrote:

Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post. I've tried a
few different editors, and I really like UltraEdit, but it's
Windows-only and I'm working more on Linux nowadays.

Here are my criteria:

1. syntax highlighting (highly customizable)
2. auto/smart indenting
3. ability to run script
4. light-weight text editor, not an IDE
5. cross-platform (not really necessary, but nice)

That's pretty much all I need. It's nice when you can customize a bunch
of other stuff too, but those are the most important.

I've tried vim, but I really don't feel like taking the time to learn
how to use it, given that I just like to casually program (not to
mention that I prefer to use the mouse when navigating a document
sometimes).

I also just started using Scite, and I really like it, except I find its
syntax highlighting to be very inflexible. You aren't able to define
your own groups of words -- you have to use what's given, basically. One
thing I like about UltraEdit is that you simply define as many groups of
keywords as you want and then assign a style to each one. Scite has a
very strange and rigid method of highlighting.

So hopefully some of you might have some suggestions. My requirements
are minimal, but I'm still not happy with the syntax highlighting I'm
seeing in a lot of editors out there.

I use Komodo, its a lil hard to find if you're looking to pay nothing,
but its a great editor. it has all those things you're looking for. and
you can customize the syntax languages for ones that aren't already
included in the package...there s a free trial ..just try a google search

[BartlebyScrivener]

John Salerno wrote:

Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post.

You got 65 answers last time :)

http://tinyurl.com/rsfjq

rd

[John Salerno]

BartlebyScriven er wrote:

John Salerno wrote:

>Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post.

You got 65 answers last time :)

http://tinyurl.com/rsfjq

rd

Hmm, I forgot all about that. Although I think the few editors I tried
recently was a result of that thread! I guess none of the suggestions
worked out for me. Oh well, I'll just keep trying different ones.