Ruby Editor

On 7/21/07, John J. [email protected] wrote:

with developing for other systems. If you’ve used Xcode and

Whee . . . even worse than having to use a Mac.


I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn’t know it would be called Ruby
– Kent Beck

Open source is nice sometimes, but it isn’t the most important thing
to everyone.
There’s no need to ignore software because it’s closed source.
It is the only means to assure persistence, if X who has the copyright
of TextMate decides that there will be no more TextMate, than there
will be no more TextMate.
Hopefully that will never happen but it is a legal fact.
That is the only point I wanted to make.

Robert

We’re on a mission from God. ~ Elwood,

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 08:44:40AM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:

(Like I said earlier, extreme customizability is not always an
advantage. But if you like that sort of thing…)

With Vim, you have to delve into vimscript if you want to have complete
control of the editor (or so I’ve read). Further, many plugins are
written (mostly) in ruby, python, vimscript, etc. If you want to modify
a plugin, it will inevitably not be written in a language that you are
comfortable with. (Maybe others have had more luck with Vim plugins than
me.)

I’m not sure that tracks. You consider Emacs to be more customizable
because all the plugins are written in Elisp, but you consider Vim less
customizable because you have to know vimscript to write plugins. Am I
reading what you’re saying correctly?

So . . . how are those two things different from one another?

(leaving aside for the moment the ability to write significant chunks of
plugin code in other languages – which I think is present in both, but
more obvious and common with Vim)

On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:04:51PM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:

Welcome to the cult,

This cult . . . ?
http://www.splange.freeserve.co.uk/misc/vi.html

In message [email protected], Chad P. writes:

(leaving aside for the moment the ability to write significant chunks of
plugin code in other languages – which I think is present in both, but
more obvious and common with Vim)

I think emacs is more customizable for one simple reason: vmlinux.el.

Emacs is an operating system in which someone wrote a popular
programmer’s
editor. Vim is an extensible editor.

(Me, I use nvi. It’s not especially extensible, but then, I don’t need
to
extend it; it does what I want and stays out of my face.)

-s

-----Original Message-----

There’s no need to ignore software because it’s closed source.
source, as well. All in all, I don’t think TextMate is good


CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] John W.
Russell: “People point. Sometimes that’s just easier. They
also use words. Sometimes that’s just easier. For the same
reasons that pointing has not made words obsolete, there will
always be command lines.”

Any given open source editor may disappear from the market if the
developers
decide to no longer work on the project. Of course, you have the
theoretical
possibility to pick up the project, but that assumes skill in the
development
language, a project tidy enough to be picked up by somebody else, that
you
have enough time to work on it etc. - or betting on the fact that
somebody
else will continue the work. Once your own business and money are
involved,
that’s not a bet I’d want to take, but I’m not a gambling person.

Personally, whether a particular tool is open source is never my top
concern,
my top concern is essentially ROI.

But as you said, mileages tend to vary.

Felix W. wrote:

There’s no need to ignore software because it’s closed source.
enough that it overcomes the negatives of being a closed

language, a project tidy enough to be picked up by somebody else, that you
have enough time to work on it etc. - or betting on the fact that somebody
else will continue the work. Once your own business and money are involved,
that’s not a bet I’d want to take, but I’m not a gambling person.
Not quite the same. With proprietary software, there is the risk that
you can no longer acquire it (can’t install old versions). If a company
decides to stop selling it, you can only get it if you know someone with
an install CD. Ever reformat your computer, then realize you don’t have
your original install CDs? Oops.

It’s the same to a degree with open source software, but the code is
much more likely to remain floating around on the web somewhere (because
OSS sports legal flotation!).

Dan

Chad P. wrote:

My theory: forcing writers of plugins to write in one language has the
side effect of creating a community of developers that can all
understand each other’s work, for the most part. These best of these
plugins are more likely to be accepted into the core of the editor,
because they are already in the “preferred scripting language”.

What I know: I have had an easier time setting up functions that do more
powerful things, because everything in Emacs seems to be based on
functions, and they can always be modified it one of a few ways (change
a variable, add a hook, or redefine a function). Maybe it’s just that I
like elisp better than vimscript.

Dan

On Jul 21, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Robert D. wrote:

weakness of the application in question.

it today, works like a charm),
Source, for some of us this is a big burden.
Open source is nice sometimes, but it isn’t the most important thing

Big Deal!
If X who has ownership of the software decides to axe it, then X axes
it!
That’s life. Not a problem. Use what you like and can use. If it
becomes unavailable or outdated, then so be it.
What software doesn’t eventually either get updated or outdated?
Neither is a reason not to use something.

Chad P. wrote:

It appeared pretty clear to me that Robert’s point was that, like all
proprietary, closed source software, TextMate may one day disappear from
the market simply on the whim of the copyright holder (or because the
copyright holder “goes out of business”, gets hit by a bus, whatever).
As such, putting all your eggs in the TextMate basket may be kind of a
losing proposition.

Well … I’ll have to go look at Robert’s post, but I don’t think open
source vs. closed source is a significant factor in the viability or
longevity of a piece of software. I personally think MacOS is a fine
product, and I think the same thing about Windows XP Professional SP 2.
And I think the same thing about the major breeds of Linux I’ve dealt
with: Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu and Gentoo.

There are other reasons to prefer open source over closed source, as
well. All in all, I don’t think TextMate is good enough that it
overcomes the negatives of being a closed source, proprietary
application.

Neither do I – requiring a Macintosh is a deal breaker. I’m not against
buying software. If you recall I compared KDevelop and Komodo a few
months back in my search for an industrial strength IDE and ended up
purchasing Komodo. Why?

  1. Komodo was cross-platform. Not only is KDevelop Linux-only, it’s
    really KDE-only and Qt-only. Linux, Qt and KDE are also fine products,
    but I didn’t want to limit myself to them.

  2. Komodo did a better job of syncing with my RubyForge repositories
    than KDevelop did.

  3. I didn’t need C/C++, which KDevelop supports and Komodo doesn’t.

There are cases where, in a strictly technical sense, the
benefits of a given piece of software do overcome the detriments, but
for my money this is not one of them. This in no way means that whether
or not something is open source is the only, or even biggest, concern,
but rather that whether it’s open source is simply an important
concern.

To me, viability and energy of the development team are more important
than whether I can hack on the source or not, except for software in
very specialized areas. For example, there are a lot of Petri net
analysis and modeling packages out there that are freely available to
the academic community in source form but not for commercial users.

I’d like to hack on such stuff, but I can’t. But I don’t want to hack
on an IDE, or a word processor, or a browser. In those cases, open
source only means I probably don’t have to pay for it and I return the
favor by filing bug reports rather than trashing them in my blog. * :slight_smile: I
want IDEs and browsers and word processors that do my bidding and make
easier hacking on the stuff I want to hack on. :slight_smile:

  • Except for Firefox and OpenOffice – those I have trashed in my
    blog. :slight_smile:

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:01:17AM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:

Not quite the same. With proprietary software, there is the risk that
you can no longer acquire it (can’t install old versions). If a company
decides to stop selling it, you can only get it if you know someone with
an install CD. Ever reformat your computer, then realize you don’t have
your original install CDs? Oops.

It’s the same to a degree with open source software, but the code is
much more likely to remain floating around on the web somewhere (because
OSS sports legal flotation!).

. . . to say nothing of the fact that a significant investment in a
piece
of software goes up in smoke with no recourse if the vendor stops
supporting it, whereas with open source software you at least have the
opportunity to decide whether it’s worth the cost to restart development
if the previous developers drop the project, among other things.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:05:16PM +0900, John J. wrote:

it!
That’s life. Not a problem. Use what you like and can use. If it
becomes unavailable or outdated, then so be it.
What software doesn’t eventually either get updated or outdated?
Neither is a reason not to use something.

Nobody was talking about what X is or is not allowed to do – only the
fact that it’s really annoying to have a useful piece of software vanish
while one still wants to use it.

The point isn’t that TextMate might get updated or outdated, but that it
might become unavailable while still up-to-date, or may become outdated
specifically because the copyright holder decides we don’t get updates
any longer.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:54:58AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

than whether I can hack on the source or not, except for software in
very specialized areas. For example, there are a lot of Petri net
analysis and modeling packages out there that are freely available to
the academic community in source form but not for commercial users.

For the most part, whether or not I personally can “hack on the
source”
is secondary to many of the other benefits of open source software,
since
I personally don’t even see any of the source of about 98% of the open
source software I use. For instance, I’ve never seen the source of GCC,
and maybe I never will (though I’m trying to find the time to contribute
to another open source C/C++ compiler project). It still has benefits
due simply to its status as an open source project that are not shared
by, say, the Microsoft C/C++ compiler.

I’d like to hack on such stuff, but I can’t. But I don’t want to hack
on an IDE, or a word processor, or a browser. In those cases, open
source only means I probably don’t have to pay for it and I return the
favor by filing bug reports rather than trashing them in my blog. * :slight_smile: I
want IDEs and browsers and word processors that do my bidding and make
easier hacking on the stuff I want to hack on. :slight_smile:

That’s a pretty clear indication of one of the benefits: unlike with
something such as Visual Studio, you could file a bug report with the
developers of an open source IDE (like Camelia, Eclipse, or KDevelop, as
examples) and actually have some reasonable expectation it’ll make a
difference. I prefer software that gets fixed in response to complaints
from users over software that just gets a bunch of unnecessary – and,
often enough, annoying – new misfeatures with the next release.

Not all closed source software suffers that fate, of course, but unlike
the case of open source software, if the developers start behaving badly
with proprietary software you can’t just fork it (or hope someone else
will do so).

  • Except for Firefox and OpenOffice – those I have trashed in my blog. :slight_smile:

OpenOffice.org’s only problem is that it’s an office suite. There’s no
such thing as a good “office suite”.

Firefox, alas, is the best of a tremendously bad breed. I wish there
was
something better out there, and I’ve toyed with the idea of creating a
GUI web browser of my own just so I won’t have to suffer with what’s
currently available, but it’s going to have to wait on me having more
free time. Lots more.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:03:59AM +0900, Dan Z. wrote:

more obvious and common with Vim)
a variable, add a hook, or redefine a function). Maybe it’s just that I
like elisp better than vimscript.

I think we may have to simply agree to disagree on the subject of
additional languages for plugin writing. I tend to subscribe more to
the
TIMTOWTDI principle of Perl than the TOORWTDI principle of Python.

Chad P. wrote:

Firefox, alas, is the best of a tremendously bad breed. I wish there was
something better out there, and I’ve toyed with the idea of creating a
GUI web browser of my own just so I won’t have to suffer with what’s
currently available, but it’s going to have to wait on me having more
free time. Lots more.

Well … I switched to Seamonkey. Pretty much all the Linux browsers use
the same Gecko rendering engine and have a similar look and feel. If you
can stand KDE, Konqueror is probably as good as Firefox now.

What ever happened to the browser that Sun used to ship with Java as a
demo? Is that still around? I liked that one.

On 7/22/07, John J. [email protected] wrote:

reason. The

maker!

I just didn’t know it would be called Ruby

I might have expressed myself imprecisely AAMOF Chad understood
completely what I meant and his given the correct answsers concerning
this already.
As for being DRY I will not answer therefore ;).

Robert

We’re on a mission from God. ~ Elwood,

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:21:56AM +0900, Peter S. wrote:

In message [email protected], Chad P. writes:

(leaving aside for the moment the ability to write significant chunks of
plugin code in other languages – which I think is present in both, but
more obvious and common with Vim)

I think emacs is more customizable for one simple reason: vmlinux.el.

Emacs is an operating system in which someone wrote a popular programmer’s
editor. Vim is an extensible editor.

I already have an OS. I don’t need to run another one on top of it.

The way I’ve heard the same sentiment phrased was “Emacs is a great OS.
Now someone needs to write a good editor for it.”

Of course, there is a good editor for Emacs. I think it’s called Viper.

(Me, I use nvi. It’s not especially extensible, but then, I don’t need to
extend it; it does what I want and stays out of my face.)

I don’t actually use extension in Vim, either, really. I guess you
could
call the syntax highlighting files for Vim extensions, though – and I
do
use those.

I deeply respect Vim. I am convinced that there is no more elegant way
to do simple or complex manipulation of text/code. However, learning
These two editors have a steep learning curve, if you want to use them
effectively. (Don’t bother trying, otherwise.) I would think that Vim is
a little better for beginners, because it will force you to learn
without being overly difficult. It is too easy to use Emacs without
learning about its advanced features, and that would be a waste.

Apologies for continuing the “off-topic” replies to the original
question about how to best use TextMate for editing Ruby programs…
but …

In regard to “vi” vs. “emacs”, it doesn’t have to be “either - or”: I
use “viper” within Emacs and get the best of both worlds.

IMHO, the strength of “vi” (“vim”, “nvi”, etc.) are that it is the
best at “word processing” – editing chunks of text, with a minimum of
keyboard input, and without having to use a mouse. While, in
contrast, the strength of “emacs” is that it can easily be extended in
very useful ways to accomplish things that are not normally
accomplished within an “editor”. For example, take a look at “orgtbl-
mode.el”, “table.el”, “calendar.el”, and, most amazingly, the
“calculator.el” mode.

Of course “vi” (and it’s clones) are also customizable, and amazing
extensions have been built for them, but there is an order of
magnitude of difference between those of “vi” and those of “emacs” –
the latter of which have a depth that those of the former would have
to work very hard indeed to match.

In any case, with “viper” you can have both worlds: the best of vi’s
superior editing keystrokes with the platformed extensibility of
emacs.

Finally, to bring this back to ruby, in the standard Emacs “site-lisp”
directory, I find these extensions for Ruby: inf-ruby.el, ruby-
electric.el, ruby-mode.el. The first one supports doing real-time
evaluation of ruby expressions within an “inferior” process. The
“electric” mode supports dynamic insertion of ruby syntactic elements
as a convenience to the programmer, and the last is the basic mode for
editing ruby programs – which supports things like indention/
exdention, face-control for syntactic elements, etc.

The reason I bring these modules up is that, if you are concerned (as
some previously have stated) with the viability of your editing
environment, and consider TextMate not suitable because you don’t
trust that their development will support their product as long as you
want to develop using it, then you may wish to consider using either a
vi clone with a ruby extension, or Emacs with these standard ruby
modules, or Emacs with these ruby modules AND viper-mode. Both vi and
emacs (not the extensions) are open-source, and have been around
longer than most of you (but not me – I started writing assembly code
on Univac mainframes in the early 70s, before Emacs was even a glimmer
in Stallman’s eyes :wink:

Now, perhaps we can discuss Ruby stuff again… :wink:

Chad P. wrote:

I find the interface for Konqueror kludgey and annoying, to say nothing
of the fact that I pretty much can’t stand KDE.
Likewise … that’s why I bought Komodo.

I haven’t given
Seamonkey a try – but I do know that I found its predecessor, the
Mozilla suite, thoroughly aggravating. I hear things have improved at
least a little, though.
Seamonkey is pretty much equivalent to Thunderbird as an email client,
and a tad less than Firefox as a browser. The only thing I know that it
won’t do is RSS feeds – for that you need Firefox. I don’t use the
composer and I have better IRC clients, but “Chatzilla” is usable as an
IRC client.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:35:26PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Chad P. wrote:

Firefox, alas, is the best of a tremendously bad breed. I wish there was
something better out there, and I’ve toyed with the idea of creating a
GUI web browser of my own just so I won’t have to suffer with what’s
currently available, but it’s going to have to wait on me having more
free time. Lots more.

Well … I switched to Seamonkey. Pretty much all the Linux browsers use
the same Gecko rendering engine and have a similar look and feel. If you
can stand KDE, Konqueror is probably as good as Firefox now.

I find the interface for Konqueror kludgey and annoying, to say nothing
of the fact that I pretty much can’t stand KDE. I haven’t given
Seamonkey a try – but I do know that I found its predecessor, the
Mozilla suite, thoroughly aggravating. I hear things have improved at
least a little, though.

What ever happened to the browser that Sun used to ship with Java as a
demo? Is that still around? I liked that one.

I have no idea.

On 7/21/07, Bertram S. [email protected] wrote:

Hi,

Am Samstag, 21. Jul 2007, 07:50:00 +0900 schrieb alex_land:

[…] regarding the editors of choice.

I suppose myself to be the most critical Vim user abroad.
I sure took long to accept Vim as a software to be at least installed.
I deeply recommend to use and getting used to Vim.

Bertram

For what it’s worth, I run Linux and currently use Cream as my editor
of choice. Before that, it was Scite.

Cream is actually a special configuration for GVim, which makes its
interface look more like that of other text editors (menus, mice, and
real-time editing), so you can have most of the power without so much
of a learning curve. It has very nice syntax highlighting, and I love
the fact that you can configure it to show a black background and
white text.