Best editor?

[Nicolay A. Vasiliev]

Re: Best editor?

Hello!

What do you think all about ActiveState Komodo?

Michael George Lerner wrote:
[color=blue]
>Aahz <aahz@pythoncra ft.com> wrote:
>
>
>[color=green]
>>Use vim. 80% of the power of emacs at 20% of the learning curve.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>A system administrator said this to me about unix a long time ago,
>but it applies equally well to emacs:
>
>Emacs is a great place to live, but I'd hate to visit.
>
>-michael, an (x)emacs user
>
>
>[/color]

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Best editor?

>>>>> "Miki" == Miki Tebeka <miki.tebeka@zo ran.com> writes:

Miki> Emacs (or VIm in my case) takes time to learn. However when
Miki> you start to understand it and know you way around it'll do
Miki> things no other editor will do for you.

Other editors also do stuff Emacs won't do. Code completion is a
killer feature and emacs sucks at it (yes, w/ Cedet too).

Emacs is pretty good for Python if you can't wait for something like
Eclipse+pydev to start (which is a good choice, and worth
learning). Emacs is not necessarily worth learning unless you are an
emacs user already. Emacs also looks so horrible in Linux that I tend
to go for Kate when I'm at home.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[François Pinard]

Re: Best editor?

[Mike L.G.]
[color=blue]
> Emacs may seem awkward at first, but the payoff was amazing for me.[/color]

Same here. A good editor may tremendously increase your productivity.
However, nowadays, good editors abound, to the point that people are
not so astonished by them. I've been around for many years, and a
good while ago, people were not stumbling on good editors as they do
nowadays. At that time, something like Emacs was quite a breakthrough.

I guess that Python is extraordinary wonderful, or not that much,
depending on your background. Younger people are exposed to many good
languages, so they all seem more natural to them. If I compare Python
to FORTRAN, COBOL or Assembler, the change is impressive. If I only
could have had something like Python when I started, years ago, and
considering all the work invested, where would I be today! :-)

--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca

[Harry George]

Re: Best editor?

"ChinStrap" <caneff@gmail.c om> writes:
[color=blue]
> When not using the interactive prompt, what are you using? I keep
> hearing everyone say Emacs, but I can't understand it at all. I keep
> trying to learn and understand why so many seem to like it because I
> can't understand customization even without going through a hundred
> menus that might contain the thing I am looking for (or I could go
> learn another language just to customize!).
>
> Personally I like SciTE, it has everything I think a midweight editor
> should: code folding, proper python support, nice colors out of the
> box, hotkey access to compile (I'm sure emacs does this, but I couldn't
> figure out for the life of me how), etc.
>
> Opinions on what the best is? Or reading I could get to maybe sway me
> to Emacs (which has the major advantage of being on everyone's system).
>[/color]

The key (as others have said) is to know your editor and be effective
with it. As long as it can handle ASCII, does autoindent, and knows
tab-is-4-chars, then it is a viable choice.

Since you asked specifically about emacs, and whether or not it is
worthwhile...

I've used emacs for 15 years, and am still learning useful new tricks
at a rate of about one per 6 months. But I've also found that the
essentials can be taught in a 2 hour session and mastered in about 2
weeks of use. I've taught dozens of people using this "Essential
Emacs" approach.

We find that emacs is for people who will be doing serious editing all
day long (e.g., programmers). I like that comment from another
poster: "Emacs is a good place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit
there."

For people who will just be editing an occassional file (and no python
code), we recommend notepad or nedit.

Now then, how do we use emacs?

1. Proper setup is essential. Assuming you have python-mode.el and
..elc in emacs's program-modes dir, then your .emacs needs:

;---python---------------------------
(load "python-mode")
(setq auto-mode-alist
(cons '("\\.py$" . python-mode) auto-mode-alist))
(setq interpreter-mode-alist
(cons '("python" . python-mode)
interpreter-mode-alist))
(autoload 'python-mode "python-mode" "Python editing mode." t)
(add-hook 'python-mode-hook 'turn-on-font-lock)
(setq python-mode-hook 'python-initialise)
(defun python-initialise ()
(interactive)
(setq default-tab-width 4)
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil)
)


2. I almost never use the interactive prompt. There are people here
who do, but as soon as the script is more than a couple lines long, it
takes longer to reenter the code (even copy-and-paste) than to
edit-save-run a dummy batch script. When I'm doing Extreme
Programming with such people, I insist on using a stopwatch and
checking which approach is more efficient -- they usually come over to
my approach.

3. I run emacs with split windows:
a) Edit the working code
b) Edit the unittest code
c) Run a shell script, where I (re)run the "go_test" script by doing
alt-p ret

In another frame (same emacs process, different frame) I keep the
oracle (known good) and test outputs in split windows, and maybe do
ediff-buffers on them if the deltas are not obvious.

For each module under consideration (view or edit), I use a separate
emacs process in a similar manner. In normal work, that means 1-4
emacs processes running, each with its own shell and own test cycles.

4. Elsewhere I'm running emacs rmail all day, and run emacs gnus several
times a day (like now).

5. When I do Extreme Programming, the other author(s) tend to be using
emacs, vim, or nedit. We don't let people use notepad for python
becuause it doesn't know proper formatting. IDE's tend to want to own
the whole show, which makes cross-tool Extreme Programming a pain.

As long as the other programmers have set their editors for
auto-indention and tab-is-4-chars, then we get along fine. [I do
notice a sizeable delay when vim people search for the appropriate
shell windows, instead of having them in a (joined-at-the-hip) split
window. This has more to do with bookkeeping than with editors per
se, but it is a data point.]

6. On IDE's and code-completion: If you are going to be typing the
same thing over and over, why not use a function, or maybe code
generation?

--
harry.g.george@ boeing.com
6-6M21 BCA CompArch Design Engineering
Phone: (425) 294-4718

[François Pinard]

Re: Best editor?

[Harry George]
[color=blue]
> 5. When I do Extreme Programming, the other author(s) tend to be using
> emacs, vim, or nedit. [...][/color]

Speaking of, when everybody uses Emacs, there is a way for Emacs for
allowing many users, each on a different networked machine, all on the
very same buffer, simultaneously. This sharing has been useful to us in
a number of occasions, and we had scripts for quickly initiating such
collaboration at any time (resolving `xauth' matters, for example).
Note that it requires a lot of confidence between the collaborating
users, as they all have extended powers on the editing session.

--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca

[ChinStrap]

Re: Best editor?

Well I would be more than willing to learn Emacs if it does all these
things you speak of, but really I can't get started because the default
scheme is so friggin ugly it isn't funny.

Anyone want to send me a configuration setup with Python in mind, and
decent colors?

[John J. Lee]

Re: Best editor?

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umo ntreal.ca> writes:
[...][color=blue]
> Overall, Vim is also cleaner than Emacs, and this pleases me.[/color]
[...]

Is this still true when comparing XEmacs vs. vim? (rather than GNU
Emacs vs. vim) I've always used GNU Emacs, but I have got the
impression that XEmacs is (was?) cleaner in some ways.


John

[John J. Lee]

Re: Best editor?

"ChinStrap" <caneff@gmail.c om> writes:
[color=blue]
> When not using the interactive prompt, what are you using? I keep
> hearing everyone say Emacs, but I can't understand it at all. I keep
> trying to learn and understand why so many seem to like it because I
> can't understand customization even without going through a hundred
> menus that might contain the thing I am looking for (or I could go
> learn another language just to customize!).[/color]
[...][color=blue]
> Opinions on what the best is? Or reading I could get to maybe sway me
> to Emacs (which has the major advantage of being on everyone's system).[/color]

Two reasons I use emacs:

1. For any question "Can I do X with emacs", the answer is almost
always "yes, use this code that's already written and working"

2. I already know it ;-)

BTW, I use vi keybindings, and I imagine all other editors can do the
same (though perhaps not as well as viper, the emacs package that does
this -- see 1. above), so that's no reason in itself to use vim.


John

[John J. Lee]

Re: Best editor?

Ville Vainio <ville@spammers .com> writes:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>> "Miki" == Miki Tebeka <miki.tebeka@zo ran.com> writes:[/color][/color]
>
> Miki> Emacs (or VIm in my case) takes time to learn. However when
> Miki> you start to understand it and know you way around it'll do
> Miki> things no other editor will do for you.
>
> Other editors also do stuff Emacs won't do. Code completion is a
> killer feature and emacs sucks at it (yes, w/ Cedet too).[/color]
[...]

I thought that too, but then I bound dabbrev-expand to F4, and it
seems even better than 'proper' completion (for reducing keystrokes,
anyway).


John

[Harry George]

Re: Best editor?

"ChinStrap" <caneff@gmail.c om> writes:
[color=blue]
> Well I would be more than willing to learn Emacs if it does all these
> things you speak of, but really I can't get started because the default
> scheme is so friggin ugly it isn't funny.
>
> Anyone want to send me a configuration setup with Python in mind, and
> decent colors?
>[/color]

Set .emacs for:
;;; basic
(set-background-color "white")
(set-foreground-color "black")
(set-border-color "black")
(setq column-number-mode t)
(setq dired-ls-F-marks-symlinks t)

Do that prior to the python settings:
;---python---------------------------
(load "python-mode")
(setq auto-mode-alist
(cons '("\\.py$" . python-mode) auto-mode-alist))
(setq interpreter-mode-alist
(cons '("python" . python-mode)
interpreter-mode-alist))
(autoload 'python-mode "python-mode" "Python editing mode." t)
(add-hook 'python-mode-hook 'turn-on-font-lock)
(setq python-mode-hook 'python-initialise)
(defun python-initialise ()
(interactive)
(setq default-tab-width 4)
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil)
)


Then the default color scheme looks ok (at least to me).
The critical command is:
(add-hook 'python-mode-hook 'turn-on-font-lock)

If you comment that out (with a leading ";"), then font coloring is
turned off and you just have black on white. You can learn the
language and the editor in that mode if necessary.


--
harry.g.george@ boeing.com
6-6M21 BCA CompArch Design Engineering
Phone: (425) 294-4718
#! rnews 1727
Xref: xyzzy comp.security.s sh:39215
Newsgroups: comp.security.s sh
Path: xyzzy!nntp
From: "Mike Lowery" <michael.j.lowe ry@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Ignoring known_hosts
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e458612.nw.nos. boeing.com
Message-ID: <IEJIG6.L3M@new s.boeing.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 33
Sender: nntp@news.boein g.com (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
References: <IEA950.D3r@new s.boeing.com> <m2psxdzzho.fsf @darwin.oankali .net> <IEHE76.3Dp@new s.boeing.com> <m2br8szd6w.fsf @darwin.oankali .net>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:36:09 GMT


"Richard E. Silverman" <res@qoxp.net > wrote in message
news:m2br8szd6w .fsf@darwin.oan kali.net...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Lowery <michael.j.lowe ry@boeing.com> writes:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [~/.ssh/known_hosts]
> >>
> >> foo [foo's key ...] bar [foo's key ...]
> >>
> >> [~/.ssh/config]
> >>
> >> host foo hostname <foo's name or address> hostkeyalias foo
> >>
> >> host bar hostname <bar's name or address> hostkeyalias bar
> >>
> >> ... and use "ssh {foo|bar}".[/color][/color]
>
> Mike> This might work
>
> It will work.
>
> Mike> but again, it requires me manually adding each server to the
> Mike> config file which I'm hoping to avoid since there are many.
>
> How? If your machines are not uniquely identified to the client by their
> names or addresses, then you must indicate the distinctions yourself by
> configuration.[/color]

How? Tell SSH to stop checking for this potential "problem." I don't care that
the key doesn't match what it was last time, just give me access! Apparently
that option doesn't exist.

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Best editor?

>>>>> "caneff" == ChinStrap <caneff@gmail.c om> writes:

caneff> Anyone want to send me a configuration setup with Python
caneff> in mind, and decent colors?

http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/ColorTheme

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Best editor?

>>>>> "jjl" == John J Lee <jjl@pobox.co m> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Other editors also do stuff Emacs won't do. Code completion is a
>> killer feature and emacs sucks at it (yes, w/ Cedet too).[/color][/color]

jjl> I thought that too, but then I bound dabbrev-expand to F4,
jjl> and it seems even better than 'proper' completion (for
jjl> reducing keystrokes, anyway).

But does not work when you don't know/can't recall what methods are
available for the object you are looking at.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[François Pinard]

Re: Best editor?

[John J. Lee][color=blue]
> François Pinard <pinard@iro.umo ntreal.ca> writes:
> [...][color=green]
> > Overall, Vim is also cleaner than Emacs, and this pleases me.[/color]
> [...][/color]
[color=blue]
> Is this still true when comparing XEmacs vs. vim? (rather than
> GNU Emacs vs. vim) I've always used GNU Emacs, but I have got the
> impression that XEmacs is (was?) cleaner in some ways.[/color]

I have much less experience with XEmacs. One friend of mine (Horvje) is
quite involved in XEmacs development, and he convinced me to give it a
serious and honest try. I did, yet never as deeply as I learned Emacs.

My feeling has been that XEmacs, despite cleaner and offering a lot, in
the realm of attractive chrome and original features, is slower overall
and a bit less stable than GNU Emacs (Richard just _hates_ when one
opposes XEmacs to GNU Emacs, and by doing so, involuntarily suggesting
that XEmacs might not be "GNU"! But I'm not in GNU politics nowadays!
:-). What most discouraged me is that fact that, at the time of my
tries, neither Allout nor RMAIL were supported, both of which I was
heavily using[1]. And also a few other gooddies as well.

I know from users that Pymacs, which allows for Python usage from within
Emacs, is supported in XEmacs just as well as in GNU Emacs.

--------
[1] Now in Vim, I switched from RMAIL to plain `mbox', and now use Mutt
as a mail user agent -- which I find blazingly speedy even on big folders.
For Allout, I rewrote an Allout support for Vim, as I could not
walk away from it -- alternative solutions were too heavy.

--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca

[James Stroud]

Re: Best editor

On Tuesday 05 April 2005 11:22 am, ChinStrap wrote:[color=blue]
> I keep hearing everyone say Emacs, but I can't understand it at all.[/color]

Both emacs and vi suffer from the fact that they can not be used by ordinary
humans. Thus, I recommend using either to impress your friends.

James

[Tim Keating]

Re: Best editor?

I bought the Komodo personal edition, and at only $30, it is worth it
for the regular expression toolkit alone.