Talk:Comparison of text editors

Emacs and Remote editing

Emacs does in fact support ftp, ssh and http remote editing through the TRAMPS interface. It can be downloaded for GNU Emacs v21 and it is part of the latest development releases (what will be Emacs v22). So I think the boxes should be checked as yes, or at least mention there is a plugin for this. See http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/TrampMode#toc1 for more details.

Ack! Yet more questions about MDI

Several editors can edit multiple documents by displaying one document buffer and hiding the rest. This is similar to a tabbed window interface, except no tabs are shown.

Most of the vi clones support such a MDI, including vim and nvi. IIRC, even traditional vi has primitive support for such an interface.

Although I'm not an emacs user, I believe that XEmacs and GNU Emacs also can edit multiple files in a similar fashion.

Perhaps we need an 'other' column for MDI? Or we could call it 'tabless tabs'  ;)

(Oopsie -- missed the comment by Smjg 14:34, 11 Mar 2005. He basically states the same thing.)

Serious suggestion: We add a 'hidden buffers' column to MDI.

Yeah, the columns need to be reordered/redefined. In the table, there are some SDI editors with window splitting, but window splitting is placed under MDI. Look confusing. (Can we call them MDI when they have window splitting?) Minghong 09:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They should only have a 'Yes' in this column if they actually allow the panes of the split window to display different documents at the same time. -- Smjg 11:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shell integration and Column mode editing

I haven't changed the 'shell integration' values for vi or vim, but doesn't the '!' command (run shell command) count as shell integration for vi/vim? I left the value as 'N/A', since I may be misunderstanding shell integration.

Could someone please clarify this?

In addition, wouldn't vim's 'visual mode' count as column mode editing, or am I missing something?

Originally I added "shell integration" for text editors can add items on Windows Explorer's context menu. But now it seems to be not only GUI shell, but also command-line shell... I don't know about vim, but column edit mode refers to the ability to selection vertically [1]. --Minghong 08:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the column title should be changed. Many people who use operating systems other than MS Windows will understand "shell integration" to mean the ability to start a shell from within the editor or to insert the output of system commands in the buffer. Burschik 15:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tabs

This should be probably multiple file handling, or multiple windows, since tabs aren't found in command line/curses based editors, to be fair. Dysprosia 22:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree

Not agree, as the way to handling multiple document can be very different: 1) open multiple windows; 2) MDI; or 3) tabbed interface. There may be more, but tabbed interface is the most popular. (I don't mean I hate command-line editor thought) --Minghong 09:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can think of

• multiple windows, similarly to many web browsers
• MDI
• split window
• tabbed interface or similar

Moreover, some editors may support more than one way of displaying/opening multiple documents, or none at all. Some may have a system of switching between documents such that only one is on the screen at a time, but without the convenience of a tabbed interface (e.g. Emacs, which provides this independently of split window and GUI-mode multiple windows). There are also platform differences - an app that uses MDI on Windows may use separate windows in its Mac version, with this being how apps tend to work on Mac OS. And TextPad uses MDI, but has a document selector window that provides the convenience of a tabbed interface. -- Smjg 14:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then, we can split the column into a table, with columns like SDI, MDI. TDI, etc. --Minghong 15:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need a column for SDI? Really it just means it has neither MDI nor TDI. Moreover, the fact that the SDI column follows the same colour scheme as the rest of the columns makes it look as though SDI is a positive feature, which doesn't strike me as right. Personally, I'd be inclined to get rid of the SDI column and move the others back to the basic features table.... -- Smjg 18:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just because you don't think that SDI is the best doesn't mean that other people don't. For example, I think that SDI is vastly superiour to MDI. Since it is a subjective thing, it would not be fair to change it. --Ctachme 21:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I reckon we should change the table to this:

	Single document interface	Single document window splitting	Multiple document interface
			Multiple overlappable windows	Tabbed document interface	Window splitting

My point being:

• It makes a little more sense to ask whether the editor supports multiple windows than the more specific question of whether it provides access to 'cascade' and 'tile' commands on them.
• The current table provides no distinction between single-document and multiple-document window splitting. Some editors, even those that support MDI, may support window splitting only to view different parts of the same documents, and not as a way of viewing different documents. TextPad is an example of this. Other programs may provide splitting as a means of viewing multiple documents, and enforce that you're not looking at the same document in both panes. There are probably numerous examples dating to MS-DOS days. Yet others (e.g. Project Builder and probably Emacs) may provide no restriction on whether you use window splitting to look at different documents or parts of one document - these would have a 'Yes' in both columns.

Though I'm not sure whether this is the best place for a "Single document window splitting" column.... -- Smjg 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

I've just implemented this change. However, what does it mean if an editor has both SDI and MDI? -- Smjg 13:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It means they get a "Yes" for both fields. ¦ Reisio 10:24, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

That's like answering the question "What is a square circle?" with "an object in the intersection of the set of squares and the set of circles". It doesn't tell anybody anything. My point is: How is it possible for one editor to fall into both categories? Does it mean that it can be run in either mode, or what? -- Smjg 13:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Better explanation of fields

The meaning of most columnts is rather unclear. Also some "features" don't apply to certain editors as they are implemented by other parts of the system but integrate seamlessly into the editor(spell checking in Unix editors is one example, a better example is ftpfs and webfs in Plan 9) Lost Goblin

16 references for just Emacs?!

We should better combine it into one reference of the Emacs manual... --Minghong 20:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Windowing system integration

What is Windowing system integration? --Hhielscher 09:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? Integration with your windowing system, e.g. right-click at a file > Edit with Notepad. Originally that column was "shell integration". But under different platform, the term "shell" refers to different thing. --Minghong 19:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the ability of the application itself (or its installer) to add an 'Edit with Notepad' command to certain filetypes? Otherwise it applies to any editor that accepts command line arguments. -- Smjg 8 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Most people that use GUI don't bother to know the command line arguments of a program. Instead of manually editing registry via regedit or Windows Explorer's option interface, this feature should come out-of-the-box. --minghong 06:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I've found a better name. Take a look. --Minghong 19:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can adding a registry entry by then installer(which only applies to windows, anyway) be considered a text editor feature? maybe something like Plumber (Plan 9) could be considered "Window system integration", but still I don't think it can be considered a feature of the text editor itself. Lost Goblin

Not really. Most people don't know about registry. Even if they do, it is still nice that the editor itself can handle it (add/remove). Personally I won't use the use without shell integration, e.g. those Java-based text editors like jEdit. P.S. Someone should put jEdit in this comparison. Minghong 09:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EDXOR is Win32

Why was the EDXOR column deleted? EDXOR is a Win32 application, with a Win16 version available as well. And, it's not THAT uncommon. --KelisFan2K5 21:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of it, can you provide references? papers? Lost Goblin

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/edxor.htm <- This is the official EDXOR site. --KelisFan2K5 01:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yea, there are thousands of text editors out there that have a website; why is this one so relevant? Lost Goblin

Small Correction

The table shows that EditPlus does not support regex find/replace. That is false. I use that feature in EditPlus practically every day.

Just be bold and update it. ;-) Minghong 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add an indication for feature available through plugins, scripts?

I just added jEdit to the comparison, but found that for most options were i had to say 'no' there is a plugin available. This is because jEdit is built to provide only core functionality, which can be expanded by plugin, much like Firefox. Adding an indication like Yes* or Plugin (and/or Script, Macro) for options that are available through plugins,scripts or macro's would give a lot more information i guess

Add it as footnote then. For example, see comparison of web browsers. --minghong 11:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nano

Edited to reflect the fact that nano does support newline conversion and all three newline types.

scriptable?

I'm surprised that in all this, no reference has been made to the text editors scriptability. I'm not even sure if there is a 'rigorous' definition for scriptability (which is why I thought I should discuss this before editing the page).

I know that if i want vim or emacs to do something that it doesn't already do, I can usually script it, either via lisp (with emacs) or a vim file (with vim). are those the only two editors that offer such features? I'm not sure... I do know that I've saved a lot of time through vim scripts, and I feel like a comparison of text editors just isn't complete unless the issue is brought up. any thoughts?

big table

as there is a Periodic table (huge) set apart from the main article with a warning that it is huge, maybe we could combine all these little tables into one single table (behind a size warning) so people can actually compare them. - Omegatron 21:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the features in groups, as it is now, seems fine. People are likely to stress some groups of features and not care about others, and this format fits that. The periodic table is traditionally shown as a single table, despite how impractical it is, both for viewing and editing. There's no such tradition we need to maintain here. --A D Monroe III 14:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

plugins

jedit does have spell checking, but it's a plugin. how should we indicate this? - Omegatron 01:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

it is indicated (sort of). it says 'This table lists common basic features supported natively (i.e. without third-party add-ons)'. Plugins don't fall into that category, as far as I know - which is why it's marked as not having a spellchecker. the same is true for vim, and probably most of the other text editors being compared.

Bracket/Brace matching

Under Programming features, I thought that "Brace matching" seemed more correct than "Bracket matching", that is, the feature to match paired "{" and "}" characters, not "[" and "]". I was going to change it, but I did a little research first. I found that "Brace" is more American-English, and after looking over Bracket, I found that name is used to cover square brackets, braces, and parentheses as a group. Most editors that support matching one of these support the others. So, instead, I merely linked "Bracket matching" to Bracket, so that people could figure out the same thing I did. I thought I'd share my reasoning here, before someone else makes the same mistake I almost did. --A D Monroe III 14:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

SciTE

Is there a particular reason why the SciTE editor isn't included in the list? I mean, Notepad2 (another text editor based on Scintilla) is there. It's not as if SciTE isn't popular. So why was it left off?

Because you haven't added it. ¦ Reisio 02:42, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

Encodings and Unicode conformance

Why has somebody decided that ASCII, UTF-8 and UTF-16 are the only encodings worth listing? Moreover, are there such things as editors that can read a file in a certain encoding but can't save in it?

We also ought to address the issue of Unicode conformance. This isn't the same as merely supporting UTF encodings. It also means preserving all Unicode characters and never misdeclaring an encoding. For example, TextPad is one that isn't Unicode conformant even thouugh it does support UTF-8 and UTF-16. [2] Maybe add a "Unicode conformance" column under Encoding support or somewhere? -- Smjg 11:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Line break support

Just as there are different levels of supporting a given encoding, there are different levels of supporting a given line break style. Possibilities:

• not supporting a certain LBS at all (e.g. Notepad with anything but CR+LF)
• read-only support - can open files with this LBS, but can't save with it (a few simplistic editors probably do this, including one I've written as a library demo)
• ability to read, render correctly and preserve on saving, but with newly-typed line breaks coming out only in the native format
• ability to auto-detect the LBS and save with all line breaks (old and new) in this style
• letting the user choose which LBS to use

What level of support is required to qualify for a "Yes" in this table? -- Smjg 12:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Advanced File Printing

One section that is often overlooked but would be of great assistance is how well the various editors support printing. Finding thorough support for printing is a difficult task as it is, given that people don't think of printing until they use their editor for a few months before they realise they're knee-deep in code and actually want or need hardcopy.

Poor printing support can be a particularly irritating aspect of half-baked editors. Likewise, editors that have good hardcopy support really shine, and can often make up in printing what they might lack in other (arguably) more superflous features.

A few key features might include:

• custom header/footer support (page numbering with total; timestamp; path; bitmaps; margins; etc)
• multiple document printing (current doc; all open docs; arbitrary selection of open and/or closed)
• command-line printing
• output to PDF/HTML
• print preview

Printing is actually quite a diverse but often critical aspect in production environments... worth looking into IMO.

Missing the point

To me this entire article seems to be missing the point. These are TEXT editors. Who cares if I can upload to FTP or write scripts if it takes weeks or months for me to learn the whole feature set? How about stuff like filesize, loading times, learning curve, popularity and the size of the community supporting it?

Hexadecimal mode

I like text editors which have a hexadecimal mode. Could someone add a colomn to a table with this?

Wikipedian editor

Notepad_Plus_Plus|Notepad++ is by Wikipedian Don Ho, but do not put User: stuff in article Fplay 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)