Why not register?
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 13 posts ] |
|
Author |
Message |
spudthedestroyer
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: Best basic text editor for Coding, properties files, etc. |
|
Site Admin Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am Posts: 19756 Location: En España
|
Traditionally, i've always used TextPad as my choice of editor, since its very powerful, tabbed and offers a lot to support anyone who edits property files
it has all the usual stuff, like being capable of handling unix text, syntax highlighting, find and replace (both in documents, and in files). Its been the usual for editing and patching, I tend to use it for quick editing of the board code and what not.
However, recently i've been trying NotePad++ which is neat, if not perfect. I particularly like the collapsable segments for ini files.
There's IDEs of course, like eclipse, but they are bit over the top for simple file editing. My backup is always plain old notepad but its incapable of handling unix text and adds nothing beyond basic functionality (no syntax highlighting, basic memory, etc.). Wordpad is an office tool, and not suitable.
What do people use beyond notepad?
_________________ Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Vae Victis
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
Demon Of The Abyss Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:01 pm Posts: 1130
|
I always use ultraedit for simple text files.
_________________ Got milk?
|
|
Top |
|
|
spudthedestroyer
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
Site Admin Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am Posts: 19756 Location: En España
|
Vae Victis wrote: | I always use ultraedit for simple text files. |
I've used ultraedit before but its not my cup of tea, i prefered TextPad since it was always more powerful.
I've also used gvim but since i can't be arsed to learn how to use it properally there's little point.
_________________ Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!
|
|
Top |
|
|
DropDeadFred
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
Master Of The Dead Donkey Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:33 am Posts: 702 Location: Gem City
|
|
Top |
|
|
ODiN
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
Dead But Dreaming Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:13 am Posts: 228 Location: Valhalla
|
Notepad++ - I use it but I don't do anything too fancy with it. Good editor which gets the job done for me.
_________________ "if someone who registered for 8 days have idea to make the site better.the man who registered for many years should have thoughts to make it best,except he was cut off head like as many man or weman in the site movies."
|
|
Top |
|
|
Member13
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
Dead But Dreaming Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:32 am Posts: 231
|
NotePad++ is my choice for PHP, Java, XML, XHTML and config file editing.
Especially for PHP programming I love the feature that allows me to hide if-else structures making the code easier to read.
_________________ Better known as Daeron.
|
|
Top |
|
|
unskinnyboy
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
Servant Of The Dead Donkey Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:57 am Posts: 96
|
Notepad2 is what I use.
@spud, why is there no [url] tag button?
|
|
Top |
|
|
spudthedestroyer
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
Site Admin Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am Posts: 19756 Location: En España
|
cos i hate url tags, so i removed it to discourage people using it. Nothing but trouble.
They stuill work, but its better to use full html:
Code: | <a href="Link">Link text</a> |
_________________ Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!
|
|
Top |
|
|
unskinnyboy
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
Servant Of The Dead Donkey Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:57 am Posts: 96
|
spudthedestroyer wrote: | cos i hate url tags, so i removed it to discourage people using it. Nothing but trouble. They stuill work, but its better to use full html: Code: | <a href="Link">Link text</a> |
|
And why do you hate URL tags? HTML tag for links would have been fine, except there is no button for that either, so you have to remember the syntax.
|
|
Top |
|
|
spudthedestroyer
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
Site Admin Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am Posts: 19756 Location: En España
|
because its not html until you run a couple of passes on it, and means there's trash in the database that has to be converted to be extracted. It also interfere's with word censorship and a whole host of phpbb mods.
you can't remember how to do a href link? damn, i don't even hit reply and use the buttons, its all typed in the quick reply box I even typed in
_________________ Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Vae Victis
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
Demon Of The Abyss Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:01 pm Posts: 1130
|
spudthedestroyer wrote: | because its not html until you run a couple of passes on it, and means there's trash in the database that has to be converted to be extracted. |
Which isn't a problem really. Same goes for img/u/i/b tags. ubb tags allow for very easy adjustment of attributes, you can add a redirect script to an url tag in an easier way than to urls themself. And when using tags you can change the html anytime you want. Very nice if you are bored with the standard quote layout and want something new. Plus the idea of not allowing html is that people can't screw up the layout of the forum. If I 'forget' to end an url tag in html there isn't much you can do about it. It will give problems, same goes for allowing tables. So I'm a bit suprised that you promote the use of html instead of the 'proper' use of ubb tags. Quote: | It also interfere's with word censorship and a whole host of phpbb mods. |
Afaik it shouldn't interfere with the default phpBB word censorship unless something is 'broken'. Which doesn't automatically means that url tag is bad.
Also I don't see the connection with other mods
I do agree it does give some overhead/load, converting ubb to html before printing it. But that is neglectable.
|
|
Top |
|
|
spudthedestroyer
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
Site Admin Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am Posts: 19756 Location: En España
|
Its not overhead; its incompatability with external software looking for http links, specific markup on the board, whereas you don't have to do secondary passes otherwise, and mainly i just don't see the point.
I have issue specifically with the url. I'm perfectly aware of why people don't allow html, just like I'm perfectly aware it would make the collections sections shitty and render a lot of posts useless. People who don't know how to use it don't have to use it. USB clearly enjoys his centers when making releases for example
I'm not sure whether you have any experience with phpbb, buts its not all inclusive html enabling, you generally would want to add specific tags to allow people to have more control over their posts.
I don't see any benefit in using url= over href=, no. I'm perfectly aware of everything you said, I've been using and modifying phpbb for a long time and know first hand the problems the url= causes historically.
It is more trouble than its worth; where you'd get unlinkable ed2ks posted in naff url tags, blank windows and all sorts depending on themes. Just makes life more difficult promoting it. The button was removed to discourage the use of it to wrap ed2k links specifically, but generally because its pointless and html is enabled on this board. It serves little to no purpose.
Add on top of my disliking wrapping a ed2k in url handling would require more regular expression and modification to get it to handle them better, and you can figure that button will not make a reappearance. I'd completely discourage its usage, and remove it whenever i see it used poorly.
Examples of naff url code usage causing problems I've seen a lot moderating, collections used to be big offenders of crappy linking.
Its still there though as are all the bbcodes and better ones that do something actually worthwhile (like spoiler), there's just no longer a button to it in the main theme
_________________ Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Vae Victis
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
Demon Of The Abyss Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:01 pm Posts: 1130
|
I'd have to agree on the problem with users using ed2k with url tag. It just sucks.
It makes it impossible to link to stats and show the filesize. Although you can alter the ubb parser and fix it, it still stinks and is too much trouble.
Quote: | its incompatability with external software looking for http links |
I assume you mean software that has direct access to the database?
The text has to be parsed before it is 'readable', so I see what you mean with that.
Would have been lots better if phpBB had a caching system, which would parse the raw text and save that as well in the database. Would be faster and easier to use with other software as well. I've seen another forum using that and it's real sweet and fast! Specially with larger topics.
Yes I've lots of experience with phpBB thats why I was curious in the reasons behind your decision. And I see now why you chose to remove the url tag (button).
And yes center rocks, and should be a standard ubb tag as well. Same for nfo btw.
I myself rather not have users use html themself, since most don't know html and mostly just fuck up.
So instead I prefer adding ed2k/center .. ubb tags+buttons.
My experience is that most of the users 'far' are more familiar with ubb code than html. Which is the reason I choose ubb over html.
Not trying to convince you btw, just mumbling my thoughts about it.
|
|
Top |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 13 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests |
Moderator: Help Mods
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|