From 43FoldersWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 15:10, 8 April 2005 (edit)
Robert Brook (Talk | contribs)
m (Macromedia Homesite <> Text editor?)
← Previous diff
Current revision (16:43, 8 April 2005) (edit) (undo)
Robert Brook (Talk | contribs)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Descriptions== ==Descriptions==

Current revision


[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Descriptions

Might it be useful for one-line descriptions to be appended to these links? Currently the only way of knowing what these apps really do is by following the links.... --RB 05:52, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Agreed, plus I think we should kill the empty links that people are putting in. Just the name of an app? That's lazy! 8-) --K 14:39, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Text editors

[edit] Macromedia Homesite <> Text editor?

does Macromedia Homesite qualify as a text editor? It's more like a webdev tool

  • No it doesn't, and yes it is. --RB 08:34, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
  • I'm struggling to understand why we need to include Web development tools? How do these benefit GTD? --K 14:37, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • Homesite is a text editor. I don't understand why it shouldn't be considered as one. I used HomeSite for years to edit every text file that I came across. Yes, it has an IE pane built in (that you can turn off) and some extra tools intended specifically for web developers, but that hardly limits it to being used solely as an HTML editor. Its relatively advanced search capabilities and syntax highlighting can come in useful in all sorts of ways that go beyond just web developing. It belongs in the text editor category just as much as emacs (which is technically an interactive Lisp interpreter that just happens to be running a text editor written in a specific dialect of Lisp) or vi (which is another command interpreter that just happens to be used for editing text and is also conspicuously missing from the Windows software page). Homesite is the windows equivalent of BBEdit really with some web-centric features that don't stand in the way of it being a really nice text editor. --ThePolack 14:59, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • I think that's fair, the original posting for Homesite was put under text editors. I say we move Homesite back under text editors and kill the Web development section. --K 16:11, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • Hey! People, people - this isn't Wikipedia. We don't have to be *right*! --RB 16:16, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • It needs some boundaries though, otherwise everything is on-topic, like Wikipedia. 8-) --K 07:20, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Text editor? True qualifications...

  • For a cross-platform text editor, vim, -- highly recommended, and worth the steep initial learning curve! - "The Linux Journal magazine does a Readers' Choice Award every year. For the fourth time in a row Vim was selected the favorite text editor! Vi and clones came second, GNU Emacs third."
    • What was number one? ed? ;) --RobertDaeley 15:04, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
      • Of course. ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!! All hail ed(1). --JamesRifkin 17:26, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
    • I think it's odd that a vi clone (vim) came in first, and "Vi and clones" came in second. If vim stood on it's own, shouldn't the other vi clones have done so too? Did they lump them together because they though Emacs would take second otherwise? Don't get me wrong, I use vim and it is the best IMHO. That just seems odd to me. --ThePolack 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Personal tools