This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Source-code editor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
On 13 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Code editor. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Regular users can't use text editor and most text editor user are programmers. So I don't see why there is a need for a separated page mentioning the same thing. -- Minghong 10:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On 10 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Source code editor for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 17:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
I added a note to the list section that any additions will be reverted if they aren't discussed here first. The addition of "Kate" prompted me to do this, a SCE I have never heard of, for a development environment I have never heard of either. It seems incredibley niche, but I didn't revert it (for now). But lists like this have a tendancy to balloon on Wikipedia—people " spam" the list with their pet additions, in hopes of popularizing them. So from now on, if one wishes to add an SCE to the list, I'd like it to be discussed here and agreed upong first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I added the ISPF/PDF Editor to the list. This was one of the first, released 30 years ago, and is still the major editor for programmers on mainframe systems. Versions have been written for various PC systems, running under TRS-DOS, Linux, and Windows. T-bonham 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of well known editors was supposed to be kept short. Still, people keep adding new editors that are neither well-known nor source code editors. For example, something called IntelliJ IDEA was just added. Never heard of that, definitely not well known. Before that, someone added Programmer's Notepad. It is one of the dozens of Notepad replacements that flooded market in late 90's, done by adding some wrapper code around Windows RichEdit component. Before that Crimson Editor was added. It is a simple editor that is neither well-known nor a source code editor. Then there is something called editix XML Editor, which is not a source code editor but an XML editor. Some clean-up is needed. -- PauliKL ( talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What about adding a section called something like "other editors" at the bottom which is a laundry list of all editors, and keeping only a few "most well known" editors higher on the page? 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Eclipse (software) is very well-known and multi-language, and should be added. 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.103.100 ( talk)
Is it ok if i add ConTEXT to the list? ConTEXT It is a very popular editor, especially when editing Uscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan911 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed this list to be in alphabetical order, instead of just random order. Might be better to have it listed with the most frequently used first, but that would probably lead to 'religious-type' wars. T-bonham ( talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we qualify the editors listed here by a precise criteria of features. To be a source code editor, rather than just a text editor, it must have most of the features listed in Comparison of text editors, subsection Programming features. -- A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
First paragraph okay, rather chaotic later. Suddenly goes to talk about mode-based editors etc.
I'm the first to revert spamming of articles, but I don't think my addition of SlickEdit to the list was spam (my addition of it was reverted). It's a widely used source code editor and is probably more deserving than some of the other programs in the list, such as Visual Studio, which isn't a source code editor at all, but an IDE. Don't get me wrong, I love Visual Studio, but to use it just to edit source code would be rediculous. So, I'm lobbying for agreement to allow it to be added.
While I'm at it, I'd lobby for NEdit as well. Any objections to either? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's funny--I might've been the one that added that HTML comment, but didn't see it when I added SlickEdit! Okay, I can see Visual Studio as being the predominant SCE for Windows; most Windows developers use it w/o using a seperate editor. Not a big deal, it is already in the list of text editors, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What about SciTE that is the best source code editor I've ever seen.
You should add it to the list.
What about those things that won't let you type/save code with invalid syntax? Is there a name for that?
For example, consider Atari BASIC. Your program was stored in a tokenized representation, possibly a parse tree. The computer did not retain the text you wrote. When you asked to see your code, the computer pretty much did a disassembly from that tokenized representation. As a side effect, this enforced a particular style of whitespace and such -- you got pretty printing every time.
Of course, only BASIC could be typed into that editor.
I think it's been done elsewhere, maybe for FORTH.
24.110.145.202 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Some basic criteria should be kept in mind, and those are listed at the top of this topic. Editors for C, Basic, Java, even JavaScript are suitable. TEDickey ( talk) 22:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed the page. It had excessive examples and was becoming "List of source code editors". I also added a new section in the same edit. 203.97.127.101 ( talk) 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The linked topic for Atom in particular has no sources that demonstrate that it is "well-known". Rather, it has a weak source for notability, and normally would be deleted outright. TEDickey ( talk) 08:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-added some of the removed editors as they were notable enough to be in Wikipedia and they met the bar as being source-code editors and not just general text-editors (i.e., having a significant portion of the feature set mentioned at Comparison of text editors#Programming features):
I now consider these to be discussed on the talk page here, so please do not remove them without further adequate discussion (but please do add your comments as we want the article to be the best it can be of course). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 ( talk) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Currently there are no Jetbrains editors - popular examples include Webstorm, PHPStorm, PyCharm. These are very popular. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is sort of the flagship product. Thoughts on adding one of these editors to represent Jetbrains? II | ( t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC) II | ( t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are a software or web developer, you will certainly know that Atom (Atom.io) and Sublime Text are two of the very most popular source-code (or text) editors. They MUST be included. I have therefore added them. Stephen Karakashev ( talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I'am uncomfortable to bump into the current practices on this article. The current "no addition without prior discussion" is OPPOSED to Wikipedia core values of successive additions, discussions, consensus building. Scanning the talkpage, I see :
This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. |
A normal wiki situation would allows all parties equal rights on the article's list, be it for addition or removal. Everyone has blind spot, and knows only a part of the field. Wikipedia is best when all can add their part to the common knowledge storage units that are article.
Alternatively, if an acceptation rule must indeed be set up, I suggest to accept only editors with sourced notability, materialized by a credible reference, and to remove all non-sourced items from the list. Yug (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
On the actual subject of this discussion, the example list, since no one found the bandwidth to disagree with my stated assessment points, I'll take that as a tacit agreement enough for the next step: fixing the problem.
Although it's hidden in the vitriol, Yug has brought a source that could be used to evaluate the most popular SCEs. I consider this a breakthrough. I propose we rewrite the list using that source, keeping it to about a dozen. Agreed? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The current "History" section chooses a few popular examples which aren't close to covering the historical sense of this topic. In doing so, it misleads the reader TEDickey ( talk) 19:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Review reliable source guidelines versus polls and the like TEDickey ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. By consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 00:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Source-code editor → Code editor – Sinmplify the title. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Source-code editor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
On 13 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Code editor. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Regular users can't use text editor and most text editor user are programmers. So I don't see why there is a need for a separated page mentioning the same thing. -- Minghong 10:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On 10 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Source code editor for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 17:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
I added a note to the list section that any additions will be reverted if they aren't discussed here first. The addition of "Kate" prompted me to do this, a SCE I have never heard of, for a development environment I have never heard of either. It seems incredibley niche, but I didn't revert it (for now). But lists like this have a tendancy to balloon on Wikipedia—people " spam" the list with their pet additions, in hopes of popularizing them. So from now on, if one wishes to add an SCE to the list, I'd like it to be discussed here and agreed upong first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I added the ISPF/PDF Editor to the list. This was one of the first, released 30 years ago, and is still the major editor for programmers on mainframe systems. Versions have been written for various PC systems, running under TRS-DOS, Linux, and Windows. T-bonham 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of well known editors was supposed to be kept short. Still, people keep adding new editors that are neither well-known nor source code editors. For example, something called IntelliJ IDEA was just added. Never heard of that, definitely not well known. Before that, someone added Programmer's Notepad. It is one of the dozens of Notepad replacements that flooded market in late 90's, done by adding some wrapper code around Windows RichEdit component. Before that Crimson Editor was added. It is a simple editor that is neither well-known nor a source code editor. Then there is something called editix XML Editor, which is not a source code editor but an XML editor. Some clean-up is needed. -- PauliKL ( talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What about adding a section called something like "other editors" at the bottom which is a laundry list of all editors, and keeping only a few "most well known" editors higher on the page? 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Eclipse (software) is very well-known and multi-language, and should be added. 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.103.100 ( talk)
Is it ok if i add ConTEXT to the list? ConTEXT It is a very popular editor, especially when editing Uscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan911 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed this list to be in alphabetical order, instead of just random order. Might be better to have it listed with the most frequently used first, but that would probably lead to 'religious-type' wars. T-bonham ( talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we qualify the editors listed here by a precise criteria of features. To be a source code editor, rather than just a text editor, it must have most of the features listed in Comparison of text editors, subsection Programming features. -- A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
First paragraph okay, rather chaotic later. Suddenly goes to talk about mode-based editors etc.
I'm the first to revert spamming of articles, but I don't think my addition of SlickEdit to the list was spam (my addition of it was reverted). It's a widely used source code editor and is probably more deserving than some of the other programs in the list, such as Visual Studio, which isn't a source code editor at all, but an IDE. Don't get me wrong, I love Visual Studio, but to use it just to edit source code would be rediculous. So, I'm lobbying for agreement to allow it to be added.
While I'm at it, I'd lobby for NEdit as well. Any objections to either? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's funny--I might've been the one that added that HTML comment, but didn't see it when I added SlickEdit! Okay, I can see Visual Studio as being the predominant SCE for Windows; most Windows developers use it w/o using a seperate editor. Not a big deal, it is already in the list of text editors, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What about SciTE that is the best source code editor I've ever seen.
You should add it to the list.
What about those things that won't let you type/save code with invalid syntax? Is there a name for that?
For example, consider Atari BASIC. Your program was stored in a tokenized representation, possibly a parse tree. The computer did not retain the text you wrote. When you asked to see your code, the computer pretty much did a disassembly from that tokenized representation. As a side effect, this enforced a particular style of whitespace and such -- you got pretty printing every time.
Of course, only BASIC could be typed into that editor.
I think it's been done elsewhere, maybe for FORTH.
24.110.145.202 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Some basic criteria should be kept in mind, and those are listed at the top of this topic. Editors for C, Basic, Java, even JavaScript are suitable. TEDickey ( talk) 22:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed the page. It had excessive examples and was becoming "List of source code editors". I also added a new section in the same edit. 203.97.127.101 ( talk) 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The linked topic for Atom in particular has no sources that demonstrate that it is "well-known". Rather, it has a weak source for notability, and normally would be deleted outright. TEDickey ( talk) 08:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-added some of the removed editors as they were notable enough to be in Wikipedia and they met the bar as being source-code editors and not just general text-editors (i.e., having a significant portion of the feature set mentioned at Comparison of text editors#Programming features):
I now consider these to be discussed on the talk page here, so please do not remove them without further adequate discussion (but please do add your comments as we want the article to be the best it can be of course). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 ( talk) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Currently there are no Jetbrains editors - popular examples include Webstorm, PHPStorm, PyCharm. These are very popular. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is sort of the flagship product. Thoughts on adding one of these editors to represent Jetbrains? II | ( t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC) II | ( t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are a software or web developer, you will certainly know that Atom (Atom.io) and Sublime Text are two of the very most popular source-code (or text) editors. They MUST be included. I have therefore added them. Stephen Karakashev ( talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I'am uncomfortable to bump into the current practices on this article. The current "no addition without prior discussion" is OPPOSED to Wikipedia core values of successive additions, discussions, consensus building. Scanning the talkpage, I see :
This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. |
A normal wiki situation would allows all parties equal rights on the article's list, be it for addition or removal. Everyone has blind spot, and knows only a part of the field. Wikipedia is best when all can add their part to the common knowledge storage units that are article.
Alternatively, if an acceptation rule must indeed be set up, I suggest to accept only editors with sourced notability, materialized by a credible reference, and to remove all non-sourced items from the list. Yug (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
On the actual subject of this discussion, the example list, since no one found the bandwidth to disagree with my stated assessment points, I'll take that as a tacit agreement enough for the next step: fixing the problem.
Although it's hidden in the vitriol, Yug has brought a source that could be used to evaluate the most popular SCEs. I consider this a breakthrough. I propose we rewrite the list using that source, keeping it to about a dozen. Agreed? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The current "History" section chooses a few popular examples which aren't close to covering the historical sense of this topic. In doing so, it misleads the reader TEDickey ( talk) 19:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Review reliable source guidelines versus polls and the like TEDickey ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. By consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 00:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Source-code editor → Code editor – Sinmplify the title. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)