JOE Hits 3.0 519
orasio writes " Joe's Own Editor , a unix editor very much like the old Turbo-Pascal 4 editor, or WordStar, used and enjoyed by us console freaks who still miss the old DOS days, and cannot finish understanding vi's modes, has been revamped, adding syntax highlighting and internationalization support after many years without new features. The Sourceforge project is open for contributors since a year ago, but this is the first major feature improvement, that brings new life to JOE as a neat console-based programmer's editor." Joe is one undervalued program -- less arcane than vi, less cumbersome than emacs.
Anyone have a replica of MS-DOS EDITOR? (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Fanboy......but...... (Score:3, Interesting)
I want semware Qedit (Score:2, Interesting)
Column copy, split windows, multiple macros that could be quickly defined by a simple to use keystroke recorder. Completely configurable. Oh, and fast and small.
I've tried most of the unix terminal editors. I end up using either vi or nano.
plurvert
Joe vs. vi vs. GUI based editors (Score:5, Interesting)
Joe was a nice alternative for DOS refugees when vi was the only other choice, but X-windows based editors make everything nicer...try middle click cut-and-paste for starters.
Unless we are all sitting at green Wyse 50 terminals, why are we still so married to command line editors? I am guilty of it too. vi is my God.
My Sweet Joe Memories (Score:4, Interesting)
Later I had an affair with Jed and found its syntax hiliting to be a bless. And, I could figure out how to get the background black!
Now, I've grown up and am much to comfortable to develop in anything less than a good IDE.
Re:Anyone have a replica of MS-DOS EDITOR? (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record, I'm was leaving Joe *right now* for Jed.
With version three, I think I'll take another look at my favourite editor.
Why vim is better than joe (and obviously emacs) (Score:3, Interesting)
vim is upward compatible to vi.
So if you master vim you can edit with vi. vi is on every unix box, even on the most "naked" ones.
In addition, vi runs on practically any terminal and any connection, even when logged in from half around the world through several "hops". (I'm typing this on an old Ampex terminal (vt 100 like) via a 9600 Baud connection.)
# vim works like you think.
Many commands are "mnemonic". In a recent post, Randy has put it quite nicely:
As I said earlier, vi works like I think. I think "replace this word with that one;" "delete this line;" "yank this paragraph and put it down there;" "move there and insert a word;" "format this paragraph." Vi provides commands that map to how I think. Some of the time I'm just typing in text without editing it, but normally I'm editing text. I tend to write something, then go back and make it perfect. I prefer to copy something that is already there and then modify it to be what I need. This expresses very well what I believe has been a major design goal of vi!
# Now for the modal/modeless controversy.
If you really think about it, it boils down to the following: it's a matter of how you define "modal"/"modeless"; in other words: if vim is modal, so is emacs - if emacs is modeless, so is vim.
The reason: in emacs you are by default in "insert" mode; you have to type "ctrl-m
While programming, you are at least half of the time in command mode (if you are an Emacs user you might not be aware of that because nobody calls it like like that). The difference between Vim and Emacs is that most most Vim commands are mnemonic and need much less modifier keys, such as Ctrl, Alt, etc.
# I believe that modal editors are more efficient for programming (and similar tasks, like writing latex).
This is because I find myself much more often editing text which is already there, rather than producing new text which hasn't been there before.
This goes well with the observation, which someone reported in the comp.editors news group about joint strain. I almost get joint strain myself when I see emacs users holding down the ctrl or alt key all the time with their pinky or thumb
# I'm not sure what the reason is, but I've never seen emacs users who actually used all those feature which emacs-the-editor offers. (At the office, I'm surrounded by emacs and nedit users
I suspect, this is because it's simply just too difficult to remember all those ctrl-alt chords.
# Speed: CPU-wise, vim is still by far more efficient than joe.
Try running joe on an SGI Indy! Or on a PC/286!
Re:VI is everywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, long story short, I couldn't the sucker to compile/run/whatever (I've forgotten the details by now), so I decided not to waste any more time and instead improve my vi skills.
Best decision ever. Easily.
Now I have an extremely powerful, usable, lightweight editor that is available on every *nix under the Sun (ha ha).
Not to mention that starting up emacs on my old 386 would not be a pretty sight, considering that just doing "vi
This is not to say that Joe is bad/useless. I wouldn't say that, especially since I haven't used it. However, for me, and many others, it's not the most practical choice
Re:Fanboy......but...... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are those of us who consider the turbo pascal interface an extension of our fingers, because we used it so heavily back in the day.
Is it as good as notepad? (Score:1, Interesting)
try it: type a few lines in notepad, and then use Ctrl-Leftarrow to go back to the end of a previous line. start typing again, and presto, you've successfully split the CR from the LF.
one word: mcedit (Score:3, Interesting)
Job interview question (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, nano is the editor of choice in the Gentoo [slashdot.org] setup. Good for them.
I didn't get the job...
Re:VI is everywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
- Backspace key won't work correctly when you want to delete text which was there already before you entered insert mode.
- Forget about the delete key, you'll have to quit insert mode and use x. (And for some reason, when you leave insert mode, the cursor magically moves one position to the left)
- When you accidentally use your arrow keys at an unexpected moment, your file gets messed up and/or you sometimes automatically leave insert mode.
And well, I can imagine that it'll be even worse on older machines.
Re:Editors for DOS migrants (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great news, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Joe 3 will be most welcome here.
Editors (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who ever has to work in a cross platform enviroment should at least be able to use vi. This is everywhere.
Personally, I like it but it took some dragging me across the hot coals by one stubborn instructor in a week long class to get me to adopt it. Once I did, I liked it. Now I use GVIM on the PC and vi on the unix platforms. GVIM on the PC is real nice, it has language support and pull down windows. What I'd like to do is learn how to set up XEMACS to run in VI mode so I can get the best of both words- but I am to busy doing work or reading slashdot to learn.
Have you heard of the internet? (Score:2, Interesting)
just ftp/http/wget it from 100000 sources, there are binaries for everything, including dreamcast to your microwave and vacume tubes
VI is everything, god, talk about lazy.
Yes, windows is everywhere, but are you using it?
Use something that grows with you (Score:2, Interesting)
There is so much to learn, you have to choose wisely. However, if you're serious about programming you will invest much energy over the years in learning an HTML editor, a good C/C++ editor, a docbook editor and perhaps even write your own editors for specific purposes. This realization made me pick kitchen-sink-emacs. But I still do not touch cursor keys.
Re:Great news, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, I love this editor. I use it as my main non-coding editor for doing various edits to configs and such. I just know the keystrokes without thinking about it. All the other editors just feel overly complicated to me whenever I try and pick them up. Joe doesn't give me any surprises, and I like that.
Perhaps if I had my brain wiped and I was to start over again, I'd learn one of the others. But that won't happen. So here we are.
Goooooooooooo jooooooooooooe!
Re:Great news, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Make that Turbo Pascal 3... (Score:3, Interesting)
You sure you're not mixing it with Turbo C, for which the version 2 (2.x?) was the last before it turned into a Borland C/C++ 3.0. (for which I faintly recall it was still possible to use the wordstar-like bindings but at this point it was definitely graphical and in windoze)
Or do you mean that this TurboVision IDE is this same text based ide that I'm talking about? But that was wordstar based and it was non graphical.
JOE and I go way back... (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, the one thing Joe kicked most other editors asses at (except perhaps vi) was its ability to provide a user-friendly text editor environment over slow connections. Joe paid a lot of attention to optimizing the screen redraws to ensure that the minimum number of characters were sent over the pipe. Back in the days of 1200 baud modems and painfully slow cross-country telnet sessions, this made a big difference.
It's funny how JOE (the editor) keeps turning up... I hacked my TiVo recently following all of those instructions on the Internet, and was amused to see that the editor of choice for TiVo hackers is... Joe!
Later today I'll be installing Gentoo on what is going to be my home theater box. The first program I'll emerge? Joe. Simple as that.
Thoughts on editors, especially vi, Joe, and ed (Score:4, Interesting)
Here are my qualifications: I've been using UNIX for 32 years, starting with ed, the original line editor. No screen editors then because we didn't have screens. They didn't show up until around 1975. Soon after Bell Labs employees who went to Berkeley started bringing vi back with them.
Anyway, now for my opinions:
1. One must distinguish between the learnability of an editor and its usability. (True of any user interface, in fact.) For UNIX character-oriented screen editors, there is a huge difference between the two. For other user interfaces the difference is not so great, but it is in this case. Go to a beginner learning vi and you will find that the modes are confusing. Go to an experienced vi user, and you will find that he or she is barely aware of the modes.
2. I edit UNIX files a lot, but in two very different ways: The first is occasional use, right at the console, when I'm unfamiliar with the system or just setting it up. In this case the last thing I want to do is install an editor. I would be happy to use ed; I just want something quick to, for example, set up an fstab file. The second kind of use is for everyday editing, and for that I'm willing to take the time to install what I want. Actually, though, because I have so many different machines, I don't bother. As soon as the system is able to, I go to my primary machine and access the new machine via SSH or Xterm.
I used to think, as many others here do, that vi was the essential editor to learn because it is always there. Imagine my surprise when I installed gentoo the other day and found no vi! Something I'd never heard of, nano, was there instead. OK, fine, Control-o to write the file. At least it was listed at the bottom of the screen. Soon I "emerged" vi (vim, really), and the Gentoo system was back in the fold.
For everyday use, I never use a character editor anyway. I did once, but stopped around 10 or 12 years ago. (Guys, I'm way older than most of you, but even I know that it's 2004!) So for me (given my description of the roles editors play, above) joe has no use whatsoever. In fact, it solves a problem that I don't actually have.
Nonetheless, I wish the new joe project all the best. WordStar (which I used a bit in the mid-1980s) was a great piece of work, and it's nice to see it live on.
Column Editing (Score:2, Interesting)
Why I Started Using Joe (Score:2, Interesting)
VI modes FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
People get so hung up about VI's "modes" they miss its true brilliance - its orthogonal command structure: a VI command is usually a combination of (1) character(s) indicating which action to take followed by (2) character(s) indicating what area of the file is affected. For example, if 'w' moves the cursor one word, and '$' moves it to the end of the line, then you can combine them with the 'd' (delete) action to obtain 'dw' - delete word and 'd$' - delete to the end of the line.
When you insert text, you type something like "aText", reading "add-to-right-of-cursor" "Text" "done". "Text" is just an argument to the "add" command (there are various other commands that also insert text into the file). There is no "insert mode", there's just "writing the argument to an insertion command".
This is much more intuitive than remembering that control-W or alt-E deletes a word and control-T or alt-Q deletes to the end of the line. It is also much, much more powerful, since at the price of N+M commands you get all N*M combinations. No other editor comes even close. I'll bet most non-VI users don't know whether their editor even has a command to delete to the end of the line, and even less what the command is if there is one. No to mention useful things like "cut everything between this parenthesis" ("d%"), or "copy the next function argument" ("yt,").
*That* is what VI is all about. It is also why so many editors can be made to emulate each other's keystrokes, but they can't emulate VI.
I have had friends learning VI, and once this simple notion "clicked" they became proficient very quickly. Watching people learn VI is rather fun... first, make sure they understand the above. Then, and only then, let them work through the tutorial, and in general use VI for all their editing work.
For the first few days, they'll tend to throw a chair at you if you ask them how well things are going. Don't worry, that's a normal response. Most people drop off at this stage, but since your vic... - sorry, friend - knows why he's going through this, he'll pull through.
Within a week you'll see the "click" happening. It is easy to verify; at this point, be prepared to duck another chair if you dare suggest to the new VI convert that he give it up for the "intuitive" editor he's been using before. The real fun part is having plenty of witnesses to both the "before" and "after" reactions.
Now, if someone decides, for some mysterious reason, the universe needs yet another editor, at least do it *right*! The "perfect" editor would use the VI way of constructing commands, but all commands would start with control-X or alt-X, so that normal ASCII characters would be just inserted. My biggest disappointment with Emacs is that it doesn't work this way. I'm certain it is possible to write an Emacs mode that _does_ work this way, but nobody did (except, of course, VIPER - which makes Emacs emulate VI).
I have been using VI ever since its first version came out for UNIX version 7, and AFAIK, in all this time, *nobody* has *ever* came up with another editor that uses VI-like combined operator/operand commands. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. I suspect a lot of it is due to people getting so hung up about VI having "modes" and therefore being so "bad" there's nothing good to learn from it. Well, their loss!
Well, I (and many others) will hang on to our out-"moded" editor. VI addiction is so strong that I have personally ported VI to VMS to satisfy it. Today we have VIM running on every imaginable platform, so getting our fix is easier than ever.
JED (Score:4, Interesting)
Tm
Editor Wars . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Having worked for companies that preferred both emacs and vi, I've learned both reasonably well.
The best editor is the one that meets your needs. I consider all of these as terminal editors, good for quick and dirty edits of small scripts or config files. I'm personally partial to vi, and use it frequently for such tasks.
The best GUI editor I've ever found is JEdit. It's fat, written in Java (not universially installed by any means), and likes to take up screen real estate. But it has so many features to make text-editing painless! My goodness, it's like the good-parts of every other text editor I've ever worked with, and it's got syntax higlighting etc. for every language I've ever heard of. No offense to the GUI versions of VI and emacs, but they've been roundly beaten.
Personally, if I'm going to get serious about editing code, it's almost always better to either transfer the files to my local box or install JEdit on the remote system. I lose a little time in setup, but I can work much more quickly and efficiently.
Naturally, if all I want to do is add a hosts entry or change a firewall rule, I'll use a console editor. Big job = big tool, little job=little tool. It's a simple concept.
While it may be true that to a man with a hammer, all problems resemble nails, at least we can employ a variety of hammers!
Give me a break (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do vi folks always think "if you don't like vi it's because you don't understand vi"? Maybe we prefer a different editor simply because we do. To me, vi seems like a relic of the 80s - a powerful relic, to be sure; but still it's a relic.
On a related note, I don't use "mail" from the command line anymore either...
Regarding arrow keys (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to expand on this a little because you missed an important point on why vi behaves as it does. The reason why arrow keys "mess up" documents is that vi is a character mode editor. That is, it reads one character at a time and interprets it as a command as if it was typed.
On the VT-100 series of terminals, the arrow keys map out to: ESC + [ + (A|B|C|D) where A is up, B is down, C is left, and D is right. So when a person is in edit mode in vi and they hit, say, the right arrow, they end the insert (ESC), get a beep for an invalid command ([), then get the remainder of the line hacked off (D). Combine that with the other arrow key sequences and you can get a real mess in a hurry.
JOE's my right hand (Score:2, Interesting)
The only exception is when I use NEdit to copy a whole document (bigger than the screen) to the clipboard, or vi before I have JOE installed on a new system (usually just to edit
What with (weird, but usable) search & replace regexes, recordable macros, useability in non-X environemnts (I work remotely with machines with broken X forwarding a lot), insane customizability (jpico, jstar, jmacs emulation modes), and the ability to pipe stuff back and forth from the shell, I don't really need anything else, and I didn't need to re-learn a whole lot to move to it.
Besides, with the time I saved by not participating in the vi/emacs wars, I actaully got work done!