1. Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
TIA
Serge
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
2. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
- Posted by "Greg Haberek" <ghaberek at gmail.com>
Jun 03, 2006
-
Last edited Jun 04, 2006
> What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
Edita is being actively developed. MEditor is not.
~Greg
3. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
- Posted by Serge Lavigne <lavigne.s at videotron.ca>
Jun 03, 2006
-
Last edited Jun 04, 2006
Greg Haberek wrote:
>
> > What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
>
> Edita is being actively developed. MEditor is not.
>
> ~Greg
>
>
I Know that. I used M Edidor in the past. What I I'd like to know is why Pete
stopped developping M Editor and started a new editor from scratch. Is Edita More
modern, more capable, more advance etc? in What ways?
Serge
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
4. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:42:28 -0700, Serge Lavigne
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>posted by: Serge Lavigne <lavigne.s at videotron.ca>
>
>Greg Haberek wrote:
>>
>> > What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
>>
>> Edita is being actively developed. MEditor is not.
Correct
>I Know that. I used M Edidor in the past. What I I'd like to know is why Pete
>stopped developping
>M Editor and started a new editor from scratch. Is Edita More modern, more
>capable, more advance etc? in What ways?
I inherited MEditor, which uses win32lib. There were many things I
really didn't fully understand (esp scrollbars and pixmaps) and in the
end I found myself fighting with the complex innards of win32lib.
Whilst MEditor was quite popular, several people complained about the
performance, and using a low-end machine myself, I had to agree.
So I looked at a few alternatives and found Arwen. At first, it was
just supposed to be a quick experiment, but three weeks later I had a
basically working editor that was blindingly fast. I was smitten.
Internally, it was *so* much simpler [than win32lib], so much so that
I ended up adding support for listviews and treeviews myself, without
/that/ much trouble.
Maybe it is simply that one of win32lib's intentions is to hide the
windows API, and maybe it does so a bit better than it ought, but it
took a move to Arwen to open my eyes with regards to understanding
how the windows api actually works. This is not supposed to be a bash
against win32lib, but arwen is, at least to me, clearly a better tool
to write something like an editor with. I will concede that my path to
learning/understanding the windows api may cloud my judgement.
IIRC somewhere it may also state that one of win32lib's intentions is
to make development simpler, even if that is at the cost of the final
program's performance. In contrast, Arwen says "speed rules!"
There are also a handful of "unfixable" bugs in MEditor. I've been
pretty anal about copying code from MEditor to Edita without at least
either thoroughly reviewing it or much more often rewriting it from
scratch. All in all, Edita is better: upgrade today!
Regards,
Pete
5. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:42:28 -0700, Serge Lavigne
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >posted by: Serge Lavigne <lavigne.s at videotron.ca>
> >
> >Greg Haberek wrote:
> >>
> >> > What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
> >>
> >> Edita is being actively developed. MEditor is not.
> Correct
>
> >I Know that. I used M Edidor in the past. What I I'd like to know is why Pete
> stopped developping </font></i>
> >M Editor and started a new editor from scratch. Is Edita More modern, more
> capable, more advance etc? in What ways?</font></i>
> I inherited MEditor, which uses win32lib. There were many things I
> really didn't fully understand (esp scrollbars and pixmaps) and in the
> end I found myself fighting with the complex innards of win32lib.
> Whilst MEditor was quite popular, several people complained about the
> performance, and using a low-end machine myself, I had to agree.
>
> So I looked at a few alternatives and found Arwen. At first, it was
> just supposed to be a quick experiment, but three weeks later I had a
> basically working editor that was blindingly fast. I was smitten.
> Internally, it was *so* much simpler [than win32lib], so much so that
> I ended up adding support for listviews and treeviews myself, without
> /that/ much trouble.
>
> Maybe it is simply that one of win32lib's intentions is to hide the
> windows API, and maybe it does so a bit better than it ought, but it
> took a move to Arwen to open my eyes with regards to understanding
> how the windows api actually works. This is not supposed to be a bash
> against win32lib, but arwen is, at least to me, clearly a better tool
> to write something like an editor with. I will concede that my path to
> learning/understanding the windows api may cloud my judgement.
> IIRC somewhere it may also state that one of win32lib's intentions is
> to make development simpler, even if that is at the cost of the final
> program's performance. In contrast, Arwen says "speed rules!"
>
> There are also a handful of "unfixable" bugs in MEditor. I've been
> pretty anal about copying code from MEditor to Edita without at least
> either thoroughly reviewing it or much more often rewriting it from
> scratch. All in all, Edita is better: upgrade today!
>
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>
Thanks Pete
This is the kind of answers I was looking for.
Regards
Serge
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
6. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:42:28 -0700, Serge Lavigne
also wrote:
>>> What are the main differences between these 2 editors?
>Is Edita More modern, more capable, more advance etc? in What ways?
Sorry, I think my other post explains the wrong thing.
Here is a list of the main advantages of Edita over MEditor:
Edita is significantly faster than MEditor, especially text scrolling,
and I'm pretty sure it opens quite a bit faster too. It also comes
with a dead simple no-frills windows installer.
When you resume a previous editing session Edita will not just open
the same files (like MEditor) but also reposition and show the same
text selection.
Edita has bookmarks, case conversion functions, cut and copy prepend,
multi-line find, a goto line function, control block and bracket
matching, code folding, and fullscreen mode.
Edita supports column as well as normal text selection.
Edita supports binding under 2.5 as well as 2.4
Edita has automatic backups and a recovery mechanism.
Edita comes with a simple window painter and database viewer.
Edita can show control characters (spaces, tabs, and newlines).
Edita has four macro keys F6..F9 instead of just F8 and can save
macros between sessions.
Edita has much better colour and font options, and optional toolbar,
(optionally multiline) tab bar, and line numbers.
Edita can preprocess the ex.err files on load to show strings as eg
crashpath = "C:\Positive\"
rather than
crashpath = {67'C',58':',92'\',80'P',111'o',115's',105'i',116't',
105'i',118'v',101'e',92'\'}
Edita has an optional file panel to show the project tree, a directory
tree, and recovery details, and an optional message area to show
captured console output.
Edita also scans known (Eu) files in the background to maintain a
database of known routines (for F1 lookup) and include file info.
Edita is multi-lingual and comes with language files for English,
German, Spanish, Spanish(latin american), Finnish, French, Italian,
Dutch, and Portuguese. (All of which are user-contributions).
Edita supports multiple programming languages via the .syn files,
which allow for line and block comments, language-specific operators,
nested bracket colouring, file extensions, user-defined indentation
and autocompletion texts, as well as a user-defined number of lists of
keywords, reserved words, recognised functions, etc. At the moment it
supports Eu, batch, html, and fasm files, though I did have a C syntax
file which I appear to have lost.
The internal version also has a new source code re-indent function,
which is the one thing I recall MEditor has that the current release
of Edita does not.
Regards,
Pete
7. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
Thanks Pete for the elaborate answer.
I was looking for debugging facilities like in the good old Ed (with trace). My
question is probably naive but is this something potentially feasible with Edita?
Regards and TIA
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
8. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
- Posted by Serge Lavigne <lavigne.s at videotron.ca>
Jun 04, 2006
-
Last edited Jun 05, 2006
Serge Lavigne wrote:
>
> Thanks Pete for the elaborate answer.
>
> I was looking for debugging facilities like in the good old Ed (with trace).
> My question is probably naive but is this something potentially feasible with
> Edita?
>
> Regards and TIA
>
PS. Playing some more with Edita, I found that it is possible to use with trace
trace(1) then run the prog, It opens Ed in trace mode. I still believe it would
be nice to do the same right inside Edita.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
9. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:36:06 -0700, Serge Lavigne
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>Thanks Pete for the elaborate answer.
Have another 
)
>
>I was looking for debugging facilities like in the good old Ed (with trace).
>My question is probably naive but is this something potentially
>feasible with Edita?
OK, first off the trace() window and Ed look very similar. What
happens when you run a program from Ed is that Ed stops dead until the
program finishes. ex.exe 'inherits' the console so if it does go into
trace() it re-uses the same window that Ed was using. So it appears
that Ed is displaying trace(), but in fact Ed itself is fast asleep.
One quick proof of this is that ed.ex does not contain the string
"main", so it cannot be displaying "F1=main F2=trace". cmiiw.
In contrast, exw.exe does not inherit the console - try running a
*.exw program from Ed to see what I mean. In this case Ed does not go
to sleep, which I might struggle to explain:
One thing to note here is that
atom t0,t1
t0 = time()
system("exw.exe",1)
t1 = time()
?{t0,t1}
if getc(0) then end if
behaves rather differently to:
atom t0,t1
t0 = time()
system("ex.exe",1)
t1 = time()
?{t0,t1}
if getc(0) then end if
In the first case (exw) control returns almost immediately, in the
second(ex) it waits until the program has terminated, so you'll get
something like {0.01,0.25} for the exw case and {0.01,7.58} for the
ex case (depending on how long you leave it). A complete explanation
of the difference would probably involve the subsystem setting in the
PE header of the windows executable, which I only vaguely grasp.
Maybe someone else can step in.
OK, back to the topic.
Attempting to do something with Edita when running "exw.exe test.exw"
or "ex.exe test.ex" is an absolute non-starter. The official PD
executables simply don't have any kind of API to do this. There is
however at least one alternative: eu.ex. Unfortunately this contains
no code whatsoever for the debug/trace window, but Matt Lewis has
managed to add a trace window for his OOEU on wxWindows project. It
would be possible to send messages back and forth between a modified
eu.ex and Edita, to make the latter behave like it is trace(), but
this is a big complex project. Using eu.ex, performance is a worry,
but someone (else) could one day buy the source and repackage up
replacement ex.exe/exw.exe, once it is all working in the pd source,
unless Rob vetoes that.
If you take a look at eama.e and the corresponding routine CD_message
in edita.exw, it should show you how a second app might communicate
with Edita to allow it to behave as a debugger. Of course you'd need a
modified eama.e that uses other, new, messages besides CD_CONS etc.
Regards,
Pete
10. Re: Pete Lomax M Editor vs Edita
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:36:06 -0700, Serge Lavigne
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Pete for the elaborate answer.
> Have another )
> >
> >I was looking for debugging facilities like in the good old Ed (with trace).
> >My question is probably naive but is this something potentially
> >feasible with Edita?
> OK, first off the trace() window and Ed look very similar. What
> happens when you run a program from Ed is that Ed stops dead until the
> program finishes. ex.exe 'inherits' the console so if it does go into
> trace() it re-uses the same window that Ed was using. So it appears
> that Ed is displaying trace(), but in fact Ed itself is fast asleep.
> One quick proof of this is that ed.ex does not contain the string
> "main", so it cannot be displaying "F1=main F2=trace". cmiiw.
>
> In contrast, exw.exe does not inherit the console - try running a
> *.exw program from Ed to see what I mean. In this case Ed does not go
> to sleep, which I might struggle to explain:
>
> One thing to note here is that
> }}}
<eucode>
> atom t0,t1
> t0 = time()
> system("exw.exe",1)
> t1 = time()
> ?{t0,t1}
> if getc(0) then end if
> </eucode>
{{{
> behaves rather differently to:
> }}}
<eucode>
> atom t0,t1
> t0 = time()
> system("ex.exe",1)
> t1 = time()
> ?{t0,t1}
> if getc(0) then end if
> </eucode>
{{{
> In the first case (exw) control returns almost immediately, in the
> second(ex) it waits until the program has terminated, so you'll get
> something like {0.01,0.25} for the exw case and {0.01,7.58} for the
> ex case (depending on how long you leave it). A complete explanation
> of the difference would probably involve the subsystem setting in the
> PE header of the windows executable, which I only vaguely grasp.
> Maybe someone else can step in.
>
> OK, back to the topic.
> Attempting to do something with Edita when running "exw.exe test.exw"
> or "ex.exe test.ex" is an absolute non-starter. The official PD
> executables simply don't have any kind of API to do this. There is
> however at least one alternative: eu.ex. Unfortunately this contains
> no code whatsoever for the debug/trace window, but Matt Lewis has
> managed to add a trace window for his OOEU on wxWindows project. It
> would be possible to send messages back and forth between a modified
> eu.ex and Edita, to make the latter behave like it is trace(), but
> this is a big complex project. Using eu.ex, performance is a worry,
> but someone (else) could one day buy the source and repackage up
> replacement ex.exe/exw.exe, once it is all working in the pd source,
> unless Rob vetoes that.
>
> If you take a look at eama.e and the corresponding routine CD_message
> in edita.exw, it should show you how a second app might communicate
> with Edita to allow it to behave as a debugger. Of course you'd need a
> modified eama.e that uses other, new, messages besides CD_CONS etc.
>
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>
Woa Nelly. Do I have until dinner to digest all that .
Thanks again Pete. One day, I'l be able to throw someting like that at you,
then, watch out.
Regards
Serge
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
