They shouldn't ask about text editors [LWN.net]

They shouldn't ask about text editors

Posted Feb 22, 2008 12:12 UTC (Fri) by Wummel (subscriber, #7591)
In reply to: They shouldn't ask about text editors by alextingle
Parent article: 2007 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice award winners

I hate both vi and emacs alike. Vi has the small advantage of being installed pretty much anywhere, so I use it from time to time when nothing else is available. Having said that, I like the eFTE editor. It has all the features a programmer needs, and it is really fast, plus it runs under Unix, Mac OSX, and Windows.

(Log in to post comments)

They shouldn't ask about text editors

Posted Feb 22, 2008 14:18 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]

eFTE... I used xfte for a long time, it seems it has been revived now ?
This is good news :-)
Really lightweight, easy-very-fast-to-use, very configurable editor.

What the difference to emacs is ?
Well, it's a completely different editor, you can do a lot without having 
to learn shortcut sequences before (but you can use them too)·

It's (of course) less programmable than emacs.

Alex

They shouldn't ask about text editors

Posted Feb 22, 2008 14:19 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Looks somewhat like emacs (for that, if you don't like emacsen, why don't you just use joe in its jmacs personality?), plus its homepage lists almost everything that makes a "real editor" in my book (multiple screens, multiple modes, ...) a TODO?

They shouldn't ask about text editors

Posted Feb 22, 2008 15:21 UTC (Fri) by mbottrell (guest, #43008) [Link]

Every knows real programmers don't use text editors. ;-)

They shouldn't ask about text editors

Posted Mar 21, 2008 20:25 UTC (Fri) by jeremy_c (guest, #51207) [Link]

Hm, where did you see multiple screens, modes, etc... as a Todo? Those have been implemented
for a very, very long time.