newskillo.blogg.se

1. OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN HOW TO
2. OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN MAC OS X
3. OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN CODE
4. OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN LICENSE

This was my great chance to get much of the features of BBEdit for none of the price. I got this from The Barebones Textwrangler page. Only with one file in view, only one split I didn't realise because the menu option was greyed out. Next editor, please! Ok, so CTRL-Y is paste from current clipboard. Here's a killer: no integration with native OS X clipboard. It handles large text files easily (eg 70k+ lines), where programs like subethaedit think for ages. Memory consumption is low, and it's fast. I guess I could live with this editor if I invested the time in using it. Unixy CTRL-A for start-of-line and CTRL-E for end-of line work fine, but Apple-S for save doesn't. That's not so bad - the window furniture is fairly minimal, so no great overhead.ĭownside #3: Keyboard shortcuts are cumbersome. I can probably achieve vertical splits by opening new windows. Split screen works well, but only horizontal splits AFAICT.

OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN HOW TO

The only available font sucks, which means I probably need to dig through the fine manual to find out how to add more, or make it support OS X native fonts if possible. At least the OS X version has some icons, looks presentable out of the box, and is reasonably usable straight away.Īnother plus is that it's obviously capable of XML/SGML validation etc., I can see it checking tags when I open/close them.ĭownside #1: fonts. I used an Emacs derivative years ago on the Amiga, which is why I have split-screen addiction. I used Emacs for OS X 10.3 Panther build.įirst impressions of Emacs is that it isn't too horrific. There's some unfortunate display corruption going on though - I don't think the default font is too happy. We can split windows, and memory consumption is low. No Apple-S saving here though, and we have the mode-driven GUI: 'i' to insert, escape, then :w to write. So, out of the box it has a nice small font, decent syntax hightlighting and integration with OS X for opening files. It lacks all the advantages of a modern GUI interface. That's exactly the problem though: it's useful to know but only as a fall-back. most useful of tools, it can be depended on to be on any unix-like machine anywhere, a handy fall-back if all else fails. Probably because it does nothing fancy or useful.

Interesting to note that it only uses 6.7mb with the two test files loaded. It's nice and friendly but not built for full-time editing. Yeah, you're right, I'm not seriously proposing to use nano for anything more than very casual quick edits. If I mark a particular criteria as '?' it means the product was so tediously unfriendly I never investigated it I'm sure some editor sycophant will let me know. Memory consumption was guestimated using OS X's Activity Monitor, looking at the value for "Real Memory" usage. The test was simple - try editing this very page in each of the editors. There's a reason I'm on this platform, after all.

OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN CODE

language support: i want syntax highlighting, folding, code completion optional.I want to be able to split the screen at least horizontally, preferably vertically too. visually useful: maximise the edit area, reduce menus, icons etc.sensible price: I'm thinking £50 is the sweet-spot, but I'd stretch to maybe £70.

OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN LICENSE

OS X TEXT EDITOR BUILT IN MAC OS X

Editors on Mac OS X Editors on Mac OS X Introduction