OW Text Editor

[W. eWatson]

No print capability?

If it has a print capability, can it put line numbers in front of each
line.

No Select All (lines) capability?

No MS Word-like ability to mark a segment for copy?

[dpb]

You begin to see the reason why so many of we oldies don't use the OW
IDE but instead our own familiar programmers' editors and either compile
within them if they supply bindings or from command line.

I've no real idea on each of the specific questions but you can follow
menus and look up key bindings as easily as I can go look them up.

For perspective, remember OW came from Watcom and last significant
updates were in the roughly mid-90s. After Sybase bought Watcom out it
went belly-up very quickly as they weren't terribly interested in the
compilers it seems. It wasn't bad for the time for a visual interface
but was lacking in programmers' editor features as compared to even
Brief at that time but never had the chance to see what it would have
become when it grew up as it died in infancy.

--

[W. eWatson]

On 11/3/2011 8:55 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 8:56 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> No print capability?
>>
>> If it has a print capability, can it put line numbers in front of each
>> line.
>>
>> No Select All (lines) capability?
>>
>> No MS Word-like ability to mark a segment for copy?
>
> You begin to see the reason why so many of we oldies don't use the OW
> IDE but instead our own familiar programmers' editors and either compile
> within them if they supply bindings or from command line.

If this is the case, why not kill the IDE and the OW Text Editor?
It's hard to believe there are anything but oldies here. There's too
many loose connections in this OW effort. It may be of use for students
somewhere, but it's hard to believe anyone else would use it, unless
they are hold overs from the 70s, which I suspect is the case.

>
> I've no real idea on each of the specific questions but you can follow
> menus and look up key bindings as easily as I can go look them up.
>
> For perspective, remember OW came from Watcom and last significant
> updates were in the roughly mid-90s. After Sybase bought Watcom out it
> went belly-up very quickly as they weren't terribly interested in the
> compilers it seems. It wasn't bad for the time for a visual interface
> but was lacking in programmers' editor features as compared to even
> Brief at that time but never had the chance to see what it would have
> become when it grew up as it died in infancy.

The cord should have been cut long ago. I would think anyone who is
working for a business or govt. agency would have headed for newer
versions long ago.
>
> --

[Peter C. Chapin]

On 2011-11-04 01:07, W. eWatson wrote:

> If this is the case, why not kill the IDE and the OW Text Editor?

This subject comes up periodically. The IDE (and I'll include the editor
as well) is quite simplistic compared to their modern counterparts.
However, they also consume very few resources. If you are, by chance,
developing on a weak system the low resource consumption of those tools
is a feature, not a bug.

Who develops on weak systems these days? Not many people... but those
who do appreciate the fact that there is an IDE option, as limited as it
may be, they can use.

Put another way... the Open Watcom project does not have the resources
to compete with large IDE/editor projects such as Eclipse, etc. But we
do (perhaps) have the resources to maintain the smaller systems we have
for the benefit of those who find them adequate or even necessary.

> It's hard to believe there are anything but oldies here. There's too
> many loose connections in this OW effort. It may be of use for students
> somewhere, but it's hard to believe anyone else would use it, unless
> they are hold overs from the 70s, which I suspect is the case.

Open Watcom targets several systems that the general population would
describe as obsolete. Who develops 16 bit Windows applications these
days? Who develops 16 bit OS/2 applications? I'm sure the numbers are
small but... they are not zero. There are very few compilers being
maintained at all that target those systems. Open Watcom is probably the
only one.

Open Watcom also supports some more modern systems as well such as 32
bit Windows and Linux. That's a nice combination. Clearly it would be
desirable for Open Watcom to continue moving forward both in terms of
host/target systems and in terms of language and tool support. All of
this can be done with proper resources. I encourage interested persons
with time at hand to get involved!

Peter

[dpb]

On 11/3/2011 8:56 PM, W. eWatson wrote:

OK, I opened a file in the IDE...took about 2 seconds to demonstrate
that the standard Windows key mappings of ctrl-a/-c/-v/-z function as
expected in the GUI interface. The selection works as it does in normal
Windows apps and afaik, Word has block marking as well but (at least
thru the latest version installed here) marks from cursor location to
same location on next line (that is, is unable to maintain a column
block). The OW IDE functions the same way.

The key mappings are on the Edit menu items. Also note there are popup
menus tied to the right mouse button for actions on selected text.

All in all, in the default mode it's much like an expected Windoes editor.

If you prefer (which would appear _highly_ unlikely), you can go to the
Options menu and under General check the vi-compatible box and change
behavior to that of vi w/ the GUI interface instead of text. Or you can
run vi standalone.

Printing isn't implemented inside the editor; there are any number of
pretty-printing apps around for that or you can use the compiler output.

--

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 12:07 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> If this is the case, why not kill the IDE and the OW Text Editor?
> It's hard to believe there are anything but oldies here. There's too
> many loose connections in this OW effort. It may be of use for
> students somewhere, but it's hard to believe anyone else would use
> it, unless they are hold overs from the 70s, which I suspect is the
> case.

...

Why? It is functional albeit somewhat dated but it is as good as or
better than anything MS had at the time.

OW _IS_ a F77(+extensions) compiler. It is a quite good compiler and
generates good code and has many target architectures/OS that aren't
supported elsewhere. It has as many reasons for use as there are users
but it isn't necessarily the proper tool for any particular user. That
doesn't imply it should disappear for those for whom it is useful.

As also noted before, there are limited resources and the price is such
one who is only using rather than contributing should be grateful for
what is rather than complaining of what isn't.

--

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/3/2011 8:56 PM, W. eWatson wrote:

We use the crimson editor for our OW code:
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/

It's a freebie and allow block manipulation.

Lynn

[W. eWatson]

Fair enough. BTW, who are the keepers of OW? Are they just part-time
participants as volunteers. I think Sybase owns OW, so do they put in
any hours on this, or do they just leave it to volunteers.

[W. eWatson]

Just making observations with the hope maybe someone might modernize it.
Yes, I know resources are limited. Isn't there a suggestion box?

[W. eWatson]

On 11/4/2011 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 8:56 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> No print capability?
>>
>> If it has a print capability, can it put line numbers in front of each
>> line.
>>
>> No Select All (lines) capability?
>>
>> No MS Word-like ability to mark a segment for copy?
>
> OK, I opened a file in the IDE...took about 2 seconds to demonstrate
> that the standard Windows key mappings of ctrl-a/-c/-v/-z function as
> expected in the GUI interface. The selection works as it does in normal
> Windows apps and afaik, Word has block marking as well but (at least
> thru the latest version installed here) marks from cursor location to
> same location on next line (that is, is unable to maintain a column
> block). The OW IDE functions the same way.

Good to know they work, but I couldn't get the block selection to work
in the sense of Word.

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 9:39 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> Fair enough. BTW, who are the keepers of OW? Are they just part-time
> participants as volunteers. I think Sybase owns OW, so do they put in
> any hours on this, or do they just leave it to volunteers.

<http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page#Welcome_to_Open_Watcom>

Doesn't "open" mean anything to you?????

--

[dpb]

On 11/4/2011 9:50 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> ... but I couldn't get the block selection to work

> in the sense of Word.

...

OWEditor .NEQV. MSWord

--

[Peter C. Chapin]

On 2011-11-04 22:39, W. eWatson wrote:

> Fair enough. BTW, who are the keepers of OW? Are they just part-time
> participants as volunteers. I think Sybase owns OW, so do they put in
> any hours on this, or do they just leave it to volunteers.

Open Watcom is entirely developed by unpaid volunteers working on their
own time.

Peter

[W. eWatson]

Of course. I see nothing wrong with asking.

[W. eWatson]

And Sybase? Do they participate?

[W. eWatson]

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

[dpb]

On 11/5/2011 10:36 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> And Sybase? Do they participate?

<http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Open_Watcom_Public_License>

Para. 13.2

Corporate-wise other than by having granted the license, no.

Whether there are current or former employees that are individual
contributors I've not clue; I don't know the background of those
individuals I do know of who are contributors.

But, as I've pointed out before, given that you're the only one I've
ever heard make the requests you've made and seem to be the only one who
really knows what it would take to be satisfying, if you think it would
really be such benefit to OW F77, then there's plenty of opportunity to
make a contribution.

--

[Nomen Nescio]

> Open Watcom targets several systems that the general population would
> describe as obsolete. Who develops 16 bit Windows applications these
> days? Who develops 16 bit OS/2 applications? I'm sure the numbers are
> small but... they are not zero. There are very few compilers being
> maintained at all that target those systems. Open Watcom is probably the
> only one.

Actually, there is the djgpp port of the gnu shitpile to these platforms
also. There is some very usable stuff there like Emacs, unfortunately you
need a lot of the shitty gnu prereqs like always with gnu and the gnu bloat
causes some problems on those old systems even though technically everything
works. It's nice that more than one choice exists for DOS and old Windows.
Thank you OW.