Post by thread:[OT!] Re: A _FREE_ syntax-highlighting editor (thr

>EMACS was like THE original freeware product.Ê It and most of its clones >are freeware, and most are available with full source code. You wouldn't be LIKE from Southern California or something would ya dude? Ê I am another unlikely supporter of EMACS. I learned it a few years ago back when I was still working for Japan Radio Co. because it was necessary to port much code back and forth between our homebrew test database on unix and my test applications under DOS.Ê Since my tendency is to do everything as efficiently as possible(some call this hacking, I don't know why....), I found it efficient to use just the one editor.Ê Also, EMACS doesn't just automatically screw with the carraige (sp?, not a father) return line feed characters like most dos or windows editors do, which is a real pain when your unix os is trying to execute your scripts after they've went through the dos editor! ..... then again, I was a big fan of Wordstar... and am really ticked at Windows 95 which forces me to use the mouse more often than I care too. Craig "Interfacing my brain" Lee Ê

Ah, yes editors, many thoughts come to mind. I agree with the EMACS (I have to use UMACS for the OS9 type stuff I do). Call be old fashioned, but I do like the Wordstar type keyboard commands (CTRL KB - CTRL KK CTRL KY, are nothing like old friends), there is too much of that mouse stuff involved in todays editors (Give me Nortons editor anyday!). A simple question, how much time is waisted with the point and click drag and drop? When all you need to do is type in text? (Please excuse me, as I have not given note to Cangy(Spelling?) characters etc.) I must say that windows seems to force the creator into using that mouse, I do like the syntax high lighting and that sort of thing (Brief did that, as does the editor in HI TECH C ,and the old Borland IDE (Pre Version 4)!), and yes Codewright is a darn good semi intergrated type editor, but so it should be: it sells for around $690 Aust! (Nasty little problem with automatic braces and(;;) when you type "for" in C. But we must all agree in, editors have come along way since the old DOS edlin!!!!!! But alas: the more we want, the more an editor does, the less we think. Dennis -=====================================================================- Dennis Plunkett: Embedded Hardware, Software design NEC Australia DRMASS Line Interface cards TRX software ISDN interface card ph 03 9264-3867 -=====================================================================-

>EMACS was like THE original freeware product.=A0 It and most of its >clones are freeware, and most are available with full source code. You wouldn't be LIKE from Southern California or something would ya dude? Nah, it just seems that certain vocal manerisms help "personalize" printed text, sort of like the emoticons and whatnot. In this case, it's supposed to add a certain degree of vehemance that wouldn't be obvious in pure text. I got involved with emacs when I was working on a clone for tops-10. When I became a tops20 systems programmer, it was the obvious choice, and an added bonus was that it ran on the "other" systems too. I haven't run into a particularly good reason to use anything else. I still use a unix-clone of a 15 year old tops20 mail reader too. Some times, new isn't better, eh? :-) BillW

Dennis Plunkett <spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > Codewright [has a] Nasty little problem with automatic braces and > (;;) when you type "for" in C. Dennis: I haven't noticed that, but I've seen a few other instances where CodeWright's automatic template insertion isn't totally foolproof. You could work around the problem by doing infinite loops with "while (1)" instead of "for (;;)" -Andy === Andrew Warren - .....fastfwdKILLspam@spam@ix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal) === http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business)

Is it fre? (probably not) Where can we find it? /Morgan At 01:40 1998-05-21 -0800, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>Dennis Plunkett <PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > >> Codewright [has a] Nasty little problem with automatic braces and >> (;;) when you type "for" in C. > >Dennis: > >I haven't noticed that, but I've seen a few other instances where >CodeWright's automatic template insertion isn't totally foolproof. > >You could work around the problem by doing infinite loops with >"while (1)" instead of "for (;;)" > >-Andy > >=== Andrew Warren - .....fastfwdKILLspam.....ix.netcom.com >=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California >=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal) >=== http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business) > > / Morgan Olsson, MORGANS REGLERTEKNIK, SE-277 35 KIVIK, Sweden \ \ EraseMEmrtspam_OUTTakeThisOuTiname.com, ph: +46 (0)414 70741; fax +46 (0)414 70331 /

Morgan Olsson <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > Is [CodeWright] free? (probably not) > Where can we find it? Morgan: As you suspected, CodeWright is not free; in the USA, it costs $269. It's published by Premia Corporation; they have a web site at: http://www.premia.com You can download a time-limited, slightly-decontented version of CodeWright from the web site. Note: Many pages on the Premia web site are only reachable through their Site Map, so if you visit their site, go directly to the Site Map and do all your navigating from there. -Andy === Andrew Warren - @spam@fastfwdKILLspamix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal) === http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business)

I highly recommend UltraEdit 16 (Win3.x) or 32 (Win95/NT) http://www.ultraedt.com Some of the feature that I really like: i. You can switch back and forth between text editing and hex editing. Great for modifying ROM code. ii. You can do "column" cut & paste. iii. You can customize the toolbar to run you compiler or better still your make utility, and capture the compilation output into a window, so you don't even have to leave your editor. Just click and compile like from a custom IDE. iv. You can edit up to 1Gb of file (if you ever need it). v. Best of all, you can customize syntax highlighting for any assembly language, C language, HTML, etc... (e.g mine have 80C51, PIC, MIPS, H8, HMCS400 (Hitachi's 4-bit) assembly and C language syntax-highlighted) And it cost only US$30 !!... US$15 for an upgrade. Regards, Peter Tiang. ========================================================== >>> Andrew Warren <KILLspamfastfwdKILLspamIX.NETCOM.COM> 21/May/1998 06:57pm >>> Morgan Olsson <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > Is [CodeWright] free? (probably not) > Where can we find it? Morgan: As you suspected, CodeWright is not free; in the USA, it costs $269. It's published by Premia Corporation; they have a web site at: http://www.premia.com You can download a time-limited, slightly-decontented version of CodeWright from the web site. Note: Many pages on the Premia web site are only reachable through their Site Map, so if you visit their site, go directly to the Site Map and do all your navigating from there. -Andy === Andrew Warren - spamBeGonefastfwdspamBeGoneix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499 (personal) === http://www.netcom.com/~fastfwd (business)

>I highly recommend UltraEdit 16 (Win3.x) or 32 (Win95/NT) > > http://www.ultraedt.com > >Some of the feature that I really like: > I think the correct is http://www.ultraedit.com Octavio ====================================================== Octavio Nogueira - e-mail: TakeThisOuTnogueiraEraseMEspam_OUTmandic.com.br http://www.geocities.com/~oct_nogueira "ProPic" Production PIC Programmer Windows under US$20 ======================================================