Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
At 10:56 AM 1/30/2013, dmccunney wrote: I'm actually more interested in what editors people *do* use under FreeDOS, and why they use them than I am in some hypothetical new product. Well, I am using the same editor(s) that I have always/long time used in MS-DOS/PC-DOS for +25 years... For small things, I usually use my own adaptation of the BINED editor of Borland's Turbo Pascal Editor Toolbox. It's a 63KB .EXE file of which about 20KB are actually directly attached overlays and help file. Can edit up to 60KB of text (with lines up to 249 characters) faster than pretty much anything else, using an expanded WordStar/Borland keyboard layout If I need to do anything larger than that, I use the SEE editor that came with DeSmet C. That one handles files larger than available RAM (no XMS or EMS though), the largest file that I have probably used with it was around 8MB... Both run just fine from anything from an 8088/8086 CPU on upwards... ;-) Ralf Ralf's last line pretty well sums it up. bs -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user-- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Hi all, My $0.02 - I totally agree with Denis here, that it's too late to create new shiny editors for DOS. After a few decennies, people got used to what they had, and they probably won't be willing to learn how to use a new editor. That's why any editor that appears should try to to get close to whatever people are using nowadays. Myself, I used for many years the simple Microsoft Editor that came bundled with MS-DOS. A few years back, I even started a GPL project t recreate the look'n'feel of this editor in an open variant: http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/dos/en/msedit.htm (the above is still experimental, written in FreeBASIC, and altough it appearts on my todo list to continue it someday, it's unlikely to happen in the few coming years due to extreme shortage of my available time :/ ) Mateusz On 01/29/2013 10:33 PM, dmccunney wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? No. The default is fine. The whole world doesn't need all the features you list below. They just want to do simple edits on files. the best editor will be the one similar to what they are already familiar with that will let them edit with a minimal learning curve. 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? 8086 compatibilty would be nice for those using FreeDOS on ancient hardware. 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. Learn more about C. Most editors these days are written in C/C++. It's handling of strings differs from Pascal, but that does not make it unsuitable as an implementation language. As for BASIC, bad enough to code in it. 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; 4.2. ASCII table; 4.11. Calendar. The question is whether they should be wrapped in a UI. The RHIDE product available with FreeDOS has these, selectable from a Borland Turbo style UI. If you don't insist on wrapping them in a UI, it's easier to have them as separate utilities available in a sub-shell. 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; 4.4. Support to external fonts; 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; Why? 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? Text is fine. I see no use case for graphics mode. 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Please all vote of this. Previously thank for voting! -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote: My $0.02 - I totally agree with Denis here, that it's too late to create new shiny editors for DOS. That reply got sent by accident partially composed. I don't think it's too late. I just can't see anyone bothering. There are already a plethora of editors for DOS, and likely one that will meet your needs. The issue is that most are not open source and cannot be distributed *with* FreeDOS. But no matter what you do, you won't get *one* that will meet everyone's needs. After a few decennies, people got used to what they had, and they probably won't be willing to learn how to use a new editor. That's why any editor that appears should try to to get close to whatever people are using nowadays. No DOS editor will be close. The defacto standard is probably Windows Notepad. The default editor shipped with FreeDOS is a reasonable compromise. It resembles the editor MS provided with MS-DOS, and a menu driven interface. The OP wants something more powerful as the default. Save for a built-in BASIC interpreter, that largely already exists in RHIDE, but that uses DJGPP and requires a 386 CPU. If you insist on 8066 compatibility, you may be SOL. I'm actually more interested in what editors people *do* use under FreeDOS, and why they use them than I am in some hypothetical new product. Mateusz __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
At 10:56 AM 1/30/2013, dmccunney wrote: I'm actually more interested in what editors people *do* use under FreeDOS, and why they use them than I am in some hypothetical new product. Well, I am using the same editor(s) that I have always/long time used in MS-DOS/PC-DOS for +25 years... For small things, I usually use my own adaptation of the BINED editor of Borland's Turbo Pascal Editor Toolbox. It's a 63KB .EXE file of which about 20KB are actually directly attached overlays and help file. Can edit up to 60KB of text (with lines up to 249 characters) faster than pretty much anything else, using an expanded WordStar/Borland keyboard layout If I need to do anything larger than that, I use the SEE editor that came with DeSmet C. That one handles files larger than available RAM (no XMS or EMS though), the largest file that I have probably used with it was around 8MB... Both run just fine from anything from an 8088/8086 CPU on upwards... ;-) Ralf -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; 4.2. ASCII table; 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; 4.4. Support to external fonts; 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; 4.11. Calendar. 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Please all vote of this. Previously thank for voting! -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Hi. I got all four copies of this email that you crossposted to the FreeDOS lists. Please don't spam. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. From the FreeDOS Manifesto, please use C or ASM for programs that replicate MS-DOS functionality. http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=FreeDOS_Manifesto 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; 4.2. ASCII table; 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; 4.4. Support to external fonts; 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; 4.11. Calendar. I don't see why a simple text editor needs to have a calculator, ASCII table, BASIC interpreter, or calendar. Start with a user-focused design, and ask What does the user need? There's a reason that EDIT in MS-DOS 5 was so simple - it made it easy for people to edit files, without having to know a bunch of keyboard shortcuts. Programmers often use a different editor for specific programming tasks (for example, I often use Emacs to write code) but a simple text editor suitable for average users with typical knowledge doesn't need the extras that you list here. Loadable fonts are a nice idea, if that means people from different backgrounds will be able to use the editor more easily. But I encourage you to make it easy to switch languages. If it's difficult to switch languages, few people will use it. Text selection (by line, or by region) and cut/copy/paste are necessities. By block do you mean text rectangle, such as starting a selection at line 3 column 10, ending at line 5 column 20? I think rectangle selection is not necessary for a simple text editor. 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? I believe text mode. Although if you use loadable fonts, it effectively will be running in the FB in graphical mode, but it should look and act like a text mode program. 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. I prefer Free Software or Open Source Software licenses, and certainly for the programs in the Base list we prefer GNU GPL. Pick a free license that you happen to like, something that guarantees the source code will remain available to all. Since you give a list, I assume you don't have a strong preference, and I would suggest GNU GPL. -jh -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the following things don't strike me as particularly important: -- external fonts -- what language it was written in -- built-in BASIC interpreter -- calendar My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their restrictions on file size. A new editor should page the file in from disk as needed so as to avoid this restriction. It also seems like overkill for a text editor to operate in a graphics mode. Bruce On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; 4.2. ASCII table; 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; 4.4. Support to external fonts; 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; 4.11. Calendar. 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Please all vote of this. Previously thank for voting! -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Sent from my meager, humble desktop computer. -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
El 29/01/2013 11:11 a.m., bruce.bowman tds.net escribio': Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the following things don't strike me as particularly important: -- external fonts -- what language it was written in -- built-in BASIC interpreter -- calendar My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their restrictions on file size. A new editor should page the file in from disk as needed so as to avoid this restriction. It also seems like overkill for a text editor to operate in a graphics mode. Bruce Do you propose built-in Basic language as macro language for text processing? or a qbasic-like integrated IDE useable as editor? I prefer a good text editor with the ability to launch aplication to process the edited text, so you can launch any external language interpreter. Best regards -- -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marco A. Achury Tel: +58-(212)-6158777 Cel: +58-(414)-3142282 Skype: marcoachury http://www.achury.com.ve -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Most people have a favorite editor already; you have an uphill battle if you think that one editor can replace the rest. Here are some comments on your feature list: - 8088 class machines should be supported. There is nothing in the 80286 or 80386 opcode set that should be required for a good editor, unless you are going to use large amounts of memory and need DOS extender support. Once again, 8088 class machines are not just in use by museum staff. There are a large number of hobby systems out there. - If you think a good editor can not be written in C, then I think you should get more experience working in C. Entire operating systems and complex applications are written in C, and have been for decades now. Nobody really cares what language you use, as long as it works. - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine. The executable size should be small too for use from a floppy disk. This is important when doing maintenance and a hard drive is temporarily unavailable. - Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell phone laying around nearby? - Font support - whatever you can get from the DOS codepage support would be acceptable. - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) - An editor should be smart enough to page in parts of the file as it needs to from disk. This enables editing of files that are larger than the memory size. - An editor should have journalling to help recover the lost work if the machine crashes while editing. This is normally done by recording the keystrokes to a separate temporary file and flushing them to disk periodically. In the event of a crash the journal file can be replayed to restore most of the edits, and hopefully not cause another crash because of a bug in the editor. - Undo support. - The ability to convert tabs to whitespace and vice-versa. - A pop-up on-screen ruler. - Regular expression support for searching through text. - A hexadecimal display mode. And I'm sure that other people have many other good ideas ... Mike -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, bruce.bowman tds.net bruce.bow...@tds.net wrote: My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their restrictions on file size. A new editor should page the file in from disk as needed so as to avoid this restriction. The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit* (as opposed to view) a larger file? (I might argue that if you need to edit program code which is larger than 64K, you need to refactor your code.) It also seems like overkill for a text editor to operate in a graphics mode. Microsoft Word for DOS will do this. Under FreeDOS, this gets me a 60 line screen in the program, (I haven't encountered anything else that will do it.) But it is overkill for a text editor. There, an 80x50 VGA screen is fine. Bruce __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit* (as opposed to view) a larger file? Often enough that I want it. Bruce -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Michael B. Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com wrote: - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) Fundamentally, Gnu Emacs is a Lisp interpreter, and most of the editor is written in Lisp. But while you may not go the Emacs route, how do you handle a macro *language* in the editor? (Keystroke macros don't count. I'm talking about conditionals in the macro language.) I spent a fair bit of time back when hacking macros in Daniel Lawrence's MicroEMACS, which included a full macro language (and ran fine under MS-DOS 3.3 - 5.0) __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bruce.bowman tds.net bruce.bow...@tds.net wrote: The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit* (as opposed to view) a larger file? Often enough that I want it. Fair enough. What are you editing when you do? Bruce __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
- An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine. FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine. - Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell phone laying around nearby? you are right. but wtf will I use a 128K machine for if I have a iPhone around ? - An editor should be smart enough to page in parts of the file as it needs to from disk. This enables editing of files that are larger than the memory size. - An editor should have journalling to help recover the lost work if the machine crashes while editing. This is normally done by recording the keystrokes to a separate temporary file and flushing them to disk periodically. In the event of a crash the journal file can be replayed to restore most of the edits, and hopefully not cause another crash because of a bug in the editor. yep. and run on a 128K machine ? - Undo support. - The ability to convert tabs to whitespace and vice-versa. - A pop-up on-screen ruler. - Regular expression support for searching through text. - A hexadecimal display mode. yep. and run on a 128K machine ? And I'm sure that other people have many other good ideas ... and ability to play tetris while printing ;) Tom -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
The FreeDOS EDIT clone is perfectly sufficient for basic editing purposes. The one thing it could really use is optimization - partly for performance (it's rather balky on my 10MHz 286, where EDIT is perfectly fine,) but mostly for memory usage (it's about the same size as the whole QBASIC package which *included* MS-DOS EDIT in it!) Beyond that, no fancy features are needed, IMHO. -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine. FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine. Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea. I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much of a memory hog where it will not boot and run in 128K? That seems absurd. We can debate how useful a 128K machine is, but DOS can't possibly be using all of that memory. - Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell phone laying around nearby? you are right. but wtf will I use a 128K machine for if I have a iPhone around ? Because some people are interested in old hardware ? What kind of question is that? Why is anybody messing with FreeDOS in the first place? Let's not get into that discussion again ... - An editor should have journalling to help recover the lost work if the machine crashes while editing. This is normally done by recording the keystrokes to a separate temporary file and flushing them to disk periodically. In the event of a crash the journal file can be replayed to restore most of the edits, and hopefully not cause another crash because of a bug in the editor. yep. and run on a 128K machine ? DAED and (the advanced version of Dewar's Visual EDitor) has this feature. It ran well in a 128K machine. Journalling to a file is less of a memory hog than undo is. Here is a link: http://brutman.com/PCjr/downloads/daed.zip - A hexadecimal display mode. yep. and run on a 128K machine ? Hex display of the current screen is that much overhead? You know that most of my mTCP applications run in 192K or less, and that includes and entire TCP/IP stack ... I understand your skepticism. But running in a 128K machine is really not such a stretch. (Unless FreeDOS really is a memory hog. I'll have to go see what it's using.) Mike -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: - An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine. FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine. Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea. I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much of a memory hog where it will not boot and run in 128K? just as an exercise: have you tried to run MSDOS 6.22 (where we are mostly comparable to) on a 128K XP machine ? the kernel itself is - after init - ~64 K. no XMS around, so this stays 64 K. how do you start 64K+ Freecom in 64K- left and do more then @ECHO Hello World ? That seems absurd. your hope to run a 20 year old 'modern' DOS on a 35 years old machine is absurd. it's like complaining the Ford T4 had no climate control We can debate how useful a 128K machine is, but DOS can't possibly be using all of that memory. - Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell phone laying around nearby? you are right. but wtf will I use a 128K machine for if I have a iPhone around ? Because some people are interested in old hardware ? What kind of question is that? if you have a 128K machine, you also have a MSDOS 1.0 operating system for it. go use this. Why is anybody messing with FreeDOS in the first place? some use it to do something *useful* DAED and (the advanced version of Dewar's Visual EDitor) has this feature. It ran well in a 128K machine. great. no need to write yet another journaling editor I understand your skepticism. But running in a 128K machine is really not such a stretch. (Unless FreeDOS really is a memory hog. I'll have to go see what it's using.) I'd be surprised if MSDOS 6.22 does significant different FreeDOS Kernel and COMMAND have been optimized to use XMS; 128K PC machines were never a target. Tom -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote: Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? Well, not the greatest fan of the FreeDOS EDIT, but in general it would be good if people have a choice, so if there's another one available, great. If that is to become the standard, that might need to be seen... 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? I am not a museum staff, but I still have two 8088 machine (though I need to get around to fix the power supply in the Commodore PC10) as well as at least 3 fully functional 80286 machines... IMHO, authors of FreeDOS related programs should consider to support machines as far back as possible. That includes the RAM usage... 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. Looks like you need to get yourself more acquainted with C. Endless numbers of editors have been written in C... Beside that, it doesn't matter, as long as you can provide the source code with it. It's just that there are more free C compilers available for use with/for FreeDOS than for any other programming language... 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; no 4.2. ASCII table; maybe 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; I think very few users will care 4.4. Support to external fonts; no 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; would consider that standard text editor features... 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; Might depend on how you define this... 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; No. 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; 4.11. Calendar. certainly not 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? I don't see any purpose in using a text editor in graphics mode. IMHO, it will just cause code bloat and therefor increase RAM usage and make it slower. Text mode is just fine, in almost all video adapters (still working today, Hercules maybe aside), you can get more than 25 rows or 80 columns of text anyway. 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Well, people in here prefer a free one. The definition of free is debatable though... Ralf -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote: - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-} (Doesn't EMACS stand for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping? :-P - An editor should be smart enough to page in parts of the file as it needs to from disk. This enables editing of files that are larger than the memory size. SEE does this just fine... ;-) - An editor should have journalling to help recover the lost work if the machine crashes while editing. This is normally done by recording the keystrokes to a separate temporary file and flushing them to disk periodically. In the event of a crash the journal file can be replayed to restore most of the edits, and hopefully not cause another crash because of a bug in the editor. Wouldn't it be better to fix the bug in the editor instead? :-} - Undo support. - The ability to convert tabs to whitespace and vice-versa. - A pop-up on-screen ruler. - Regular expression support for searching through text. - A hexadecimal display mode. I could see the use for a (limited at least) Undo support and regex search, but I could do easily without the others. Ralf -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Tom, Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive? PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare. PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there is nothing wrong with asking or trying to push the limits. So make it 256K. Fine. The point (which you missed by a country mile) is that it should run on a fairly small machine. Because they are out there ... And no, 35 years ago would put us in 1978. 128K/256K PC style machines were common even in 1985/1986. FreeDOS does not add that much extra function where a 256K (or even a smaller machine) could not be a reasonable target. I don't question your use case .. please stop acting like mine is idiocy/blasphemy. Get a hold of yourself, this is a what-if discussion ... I'd also reserve the use of wtf for situations that deserve it. Like, when a tree falls on your car. I can't understand why mailing lists have to devolve into this kind of crap. Mike -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Op 29-1-2013 20:02, Michael B. Brutman schreef: PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare. PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there is nothing wrong with asking or trying to push the limits. So make it 256K. Fine. The point (which you missed by a country mile) is that it should run on a fairly small machine. Because they are out there ... And no, 35 years ago would put us in 1978. 128K/256K PC style machines were common even in 1985/1986. FreeDOS does not add that much extra function where a 256K (or even a smaller machine) could not be a reasonable target. Boot FreeDOS on a modern machine (or emulator) without loading an XMS driver. You'll see about 56KB for kernel (likely config.sys settings can reduce memory if manually specifying a lower amount of buffers/files etc) and FreeCOM using about 101KB (which you can't reduce, even if loading an XMS-manager from commandline). That makes 157KB, without having loaded drivers and loaded programs. Though compiled versions of FreeCOM exist that can swap large parts of shell to disk upon executing a command, my bet would be on the shells used by embedded ROM-DOS or so. 4DOS also is able to swap to disk (256KB swapfile) in order to preserve memory for starting/running programs. Out of the remaining amount of conventional memory, I've got no idea what's still able to run and what not. Only ever used machines that had at least 640KB available. Any emulator available that allows to set CPU below 386 and total system memory capacity at a user-selected value below 1024KB ? Bernd -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive? PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare. PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. FreeDOS will inherently use ~60K more then MSDOS as command.com swaps only to XMS or not at all. If FreeDOS is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there is nothing wrong with asking or trying to push the limits. it was always assumed that XMS is plenty ( 128K) available. BTW: when I started with Freedos some time in 2001, I remember 420 K free with just kernel and FreeCOM loaded. this leaves the kernel and freecom using 220 K. as most optimizations were 'use XMS to reduce low memory footprint' this is mostly still true today. ... I'd also reserve the use of wtf for situations that deserve it. Like, when a tree falls on your car. point taken :) Tom -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote: At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote: - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-} (Doesn't EMACS stand for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping? :-P Actually, Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift... (A friend commented I do not have enough digits to use Emacs effectively.) Ralf __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions: 1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as standard text editor? No. The default is fine. The whole world doesn't need all the features you list below. They just want to do simple edits on files. the best editor will be the one similar to what they are already familiar with that will let them edit with a minimal learning curve. 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? 8086 compatibilty would be nice for those using FreeDOS on ancient hardware. 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. Learn more about C. Most editors these days are written in C/C++. It's handling of strings differs from Pascal, but that does not make it unsuitable as an implementation language. As for BASIC, bad enough to code in it. 4. Editor must be have: 4.1. Calculator; 4.2. ASCII table; 4.11. Calendar. The question is whether they should be wrapped in a UI. The RHIDE product available with FreeDOS has these, selectable from a Borland Turbo style UI. If you don't insist on wrapping them in a UI, it's easier to have them as separate utilities available in a sub-shell. 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; 4.4. Support to external fonts; 4.5. Support the copy/paste; 4.6. Support the block selection; 4.7. Support the line selection; 4.8. Support the paragraph formatting; 4.9. Support the change case of the selected text; 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; Why? 5. Editor must be work in the graphics or text mode? Text is fine. I see no use case for graphics mode. 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Please all vote of this. Previously thank for voting! -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Hi, On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote: At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote: 2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)? IMHO, authors of FreeDOS related programs should consider to support machines as far back as possible. That includes the RAM usage... This often depends on the compilers available. He's not said it outright, but I assume he's dual compiling with Turbo Pascal and FPC. There are inherent limits in both. Neither is (by default) a perfect fit. And while I'm nostalgic for 8086 (yet never had one), I think it's safe to assume 386 these days. But having an 8086 version might be fun. ;-) 3. Editor must be written on the Pascal or BASIC language? I convinced that the C language is does not work properly with the strings. Looks like you need to get yourself more acquainted with C. Endless numbers of editors have been written in C... Beside that, it doesn't matter, as long as you can provide the source code with it. It's just that there are more free C compilers available for use with/for FreeDOS than for any other programming language... I don't think he meant it as polemic as it sounded. Yes, C is popular, it works, and it has a few quirks. Same as any other language, nothing is perfect, workarounds are needed in some cases. It's up to each individual author: he who codes, decides. I assume this is moot because he's already written his editor in (Turbo dialect) Pascal. There are a few minor advantages to Pascal avoiding range errors and buffer overflows, but yes, a properly debugged (lint, valgrind) C app can work fine. BTW, just to nitpick, I know it's easy to say, Anything can be written in C or Linux uses it, so anything's possible, but this is a bit of a gross simplification. I've never cared enough nor been adventurous enough to build a Linux kernel, but from what I've heard, it's C99 (using its own pseudo OOP in places) plus GCC extensions plus some assembly (ATT inline?). This is not quite the same thing as most people in FreeDOS prefer (ANSI C89 with semi-documented DOS extensions and various 16-bit memory models). Same as Pascal could mean different things to different people (ISO 7185, ISO 10206, DEC, TP3, TP55, TP7, D2, D7, CP). 4.3. Inbuild cyrillic font; I think very few users will care Maybe, maybe not. But if it's not there, nobody will care, or at least if they do, they will use something else. I assume he's already implemented this for obvious reasons. As an amateur linguist, I welcome it. (Priviet!) No reason to not be more i18n friendly. ;-) 4.10. Have a inbuild BASIC language interpretter; 4.11. Calendar. certainly not Some people (Dennis??) like built-in extension languages. But I guess that's for heavy text scripting etc. I don't personally use such, but it could be useful. THE uses Rexx, VIM has VIMscript (or can use Lua), Emacs has ELisp, etc. etc. http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MacroLanguage 6. Editor in what license type: 6.1. GNU GPL v2; 6.2. GNU GPL v3; 6.3. Apache license; 6.4. BSD license; 6.5. EULA. Well, people in here prefer a free one. The definition of free is debatable though... I personally think it's a waste of time to argue licensing. BUT ... the most commonly acceptable ones are GPL-compatible FOSS (four freedoms) or BSD-ish (MIT) or something approved as Open Source. But even these have their own internal differences between variations. I'd suggest GPL v2 or later or BSD 2-clause (or even MIT like Lua). Those seem the most widely accepted. Though of course you can also dual license if desired (like Perl, Ruby, etc). P.S. I've tried many text editors over the years. By default I've stuck with TDE, for whatever reason, which is glued into my brain. There are many others with various features. It's not easy to choose just one, but you can always use several (as I still do on occasion). The more the merrier! -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
Hi, On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote: At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote: - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-} (Doesn't EMACS stand for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping? :-P Actually, Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift... Yuk yuk. Yeah, we've all heard the jokes. ;-)It's actually Editor Macros, as you well know. http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/gnuemacs.acro.exp.html Latest GNU Emacs for DJGPP (prebuilt binaries) is 23.3, and IIRC, the main .EXE is over 12 MB nowadays. (So much for 8 MB ) Don't get your hopes up on using it effectively on old machines (even with CWSDPMI swapping)! A smaller alternative would be JED, but I still haven't gotten around to packaging that up for us yet. (Or some variant of MicroEmacs, e.g. JASSPA.) em2303b.zip25-Apr-201142 MB http://na.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/djgpp/current/v2gnu/em2303b.zip http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=11751#p11751 http://www.jasspa.com/downdos.html (A friend commented I do not have enough digits to use Emacs effectively.) Use VIPER mode (or similar). Or just use VILE (based upon older MicroEmacs!) .;-) http://invisible-island.net/vile/ -- Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote: At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote: - Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users, please forgive me.) EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-} (Doesn't EMACS stand for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping? :-P Actually, Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift... Yuk yuk. Yeah, we've all heard the jokes. ;-)It's actually Editor Macros, as you well know. Editing MACroS Since the original emacs was a set of macros written in the TECO language available on MIT's ITS system. the name was descriptive. Richard Stallman took several existing packages, merged and regularized them, and the result became emacs. He recounted knowing he was successful when emacs became what everybody at the MIT AI labs used, and that he had forgotten how to do various things in the underlying TECO language. I believe Stallman's original TECO macros are still available, but you would need the ITS version of TECO with Control-R mode to use it. Stallman considered Emacs an editor design whose initial version was expressed in TECO, because TECO was available for the purpose. When TECO went away at MIT, it got re-written in Lisp. Latest GNU Emacs for DJGPP (prebuilt binaries) is 23.3, and IIRC, the main .EXE is over 12 MB nowadays. (So much for 8 MB ) Don't get your hopes up on using it effectively on old machines (even with CWSDPMI swapping)! A smaller alternative would be JED, but I still haven't gotten around to packaging that up for us yet. (Or some variant of MicroEmacs, e.g. JASSPA.) Depends on what you want. If your desire is an editor with emacs keystroke assignments and overall design, there are a number. If you want macros, the number drops. If you want a Lisp interpreter, you're looking at a DJGPP port, and good luck. What I ran back when was v3.6 of Daniel Lawrence's MicroEMACS, which also built out of the box from supplied source on my ATT 3B1 Unix workstation. (v18.xx of Gnu Emacs was available for the 3B1 as well. I spent some time customizing it to do sensible things when various special purpose keys on the 3B1 keyboard were pressed.) At some point, I'll have to try to recreate the macro package I wrote for MicroEMACS that made it use WordStar key mappings. __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] New standard FreeDOS text editor - what it should be (voting)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote: Some people (Dennis??) like built-in extension languages. But I guess that's for heavy text scripting etc. I don't personally use such, but it could be useful. THE uses Rexx, VIM has VIMscript (or can use Lua), Emacs has ELisp, etc. etc. http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MacroLanguage smile As principal maintainer of TextEditors, it's nice to see my work referenced... I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all editor for any computer/OS. Personally, I use several, though which set varies depending on machine and OS. One question with an editor is Does it do macros?. If the answer is Yes, the next question is whether they are keystroke macros, and whether they can be saved under a name and loaded and reused. The last question is whether the macro facility is part of a macro language with conditional execution constructs. Under DOS, one editor I'm fond of is Brian H. Kelley's TM, a tiny emacs style editor implemented in 4K. It has emacs key assignments, keystroke macros, incremental search, and undo. He wanted to see what he could cram into a 4K file, and TM was the result. See http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TM Another I liked war David Nye's E 1.4. E edited files up to available RAM, had search and replace, block copy/move/delete, and settable right *and* left margins. The main gotcha was that text was stored as 80 column lines, and lines longer than that were silently truncated. It had a novel approach to macros. You could create batch files named 1.bat, 2.bat, etc. Press the corresponding F-key and E would write the text in memory to a temp file, call the batch file attached to the F-key, and pass it the name of the temp file. When the batch file completed, E would read the temp file back into memory. So you could use batch files as external filters calling things like SED or AWK to perform manipulations on the text you were editing outside of E. See http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?E.Com Under DOS back when, I kept things like E or Tim Baldwin's T editor (available for DOS and OS/2) on a RAM disk for speed. For more complex work, I used MicroEMACS because it *had* a full macro language. See http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?T When you talk about Emacs, the boundary lines get blurry. Gnu Emacs is essentially a Lisp interpreter, and most of it is written in Elisp. When you get to Windows and Linux, you get editors written in Java, Lisp, Python, and Tcl-Tk, where the implementation language *is* the macro language. __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
