Mac version of SciTE

[soft_...@126.com]

Hi, all,

Recently I switched to Mac OS X and instantly became addicted to this
thrilling OS. Everything I needed for work under windows has a Mac
correspondence, except the most important one -- SciTE editor. I have
googled a lot to find a near approximate, but none has emerged as an
ideal substitute. Currently I am using Smultron and Editra as my text
editor, but they are far from being comparable to SciTE. I knew that
there is some solution via darwin or Fink, but an ideal solution could
be nothing except a native Mac port of SciTE. Since Scintilla already
can be compiled on the Mac, the problem is how hard would it be to
port the SciTE code natively to Mac OS X. Is there anyone working on
that? Is Neil considering a Mac port?

Thanks and regards

instanton
soft_share<at>126<dot>com

[mitchell]

Hi,

> Since Scintilla already  
> can be compiled on the Mac, the problem is how hard would it be to  
> port the SciTE code natively to Mac OS X. Is there anyone working on  
> that?

It's an awful lot of work to do a Carbon port (I suspect using Cocoa
would not be possible).

> Is Neil considering a Mac port?

IIRC, no.

-Mitchell;

[bogdan...@gmail.com]

http://macromates.com

not free but alot of buzz around it...

[Neil Hodgson]

instanton:

> the problem is how hard would it be to
> port the SciTE code natively to Mac OS X. Is there anyone working on
> that?

It is a serious amount of work for someone not familiar with
writing Mac UI code: all of the menu and dialog and chrome code would
have to be ported. The common Unix code should be factored out so it
can be used both on Linux and OS X.

> Is Neil considering a Mac port?

Since I'm writing this on a MacBook which is now my most used
machine, I'd like SciTE to run under OS X but I haven't found enough
time to learn another platform. I use Komodo Edit on OS X.

Neil

[soft_...@126.com]

>
> Since I'm writing this on a MacBook which is now my most used
> machine, I'd like SciTE to run under OS X but I haven't found enough
> time to learn another platform. I use Komodo Edit on OS X.
>
> Neil
>

It is nice to hear that Neil is now using Mac OS X as primary OS. I
expect one day Neil will find time and necessity for porting SciTE to
Mac OS X ：）

[TomB]

Having switched to Mac recently, I went through this too.

There's a GTK build available for the Mac through MacPorts (an apt-get
like program for Mac) which is kept fairly up to date.

http://scite.darwinports.com/

I also had some luck building a SciTE bundle using gtk+mac, which
doesn't use X11 and allows for better Mac integration (including the
ability to use the Mac menu bar and drag-and-drop support). Although,
I had to make a couple of ugly hacks to make things work properly (the
gtk command required for pasting seems to have issues).

http://developer.imendio.com/projects/gtk-macosx

[fred]

On Dec 10 2008, 10:53 pm, TomB <blind_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I also had some luck building a SciTE bundle using gtk+mac, which
> doesn't use X11 and allows for better Mac integration (including the
> ability to use the Mac menu bar and drag-and-drop support). Although,
> I had to make a couple of ugly hacks to make things work properly (the
> gtk command required for pasting seems to have issues).

Could you share your binaries?
I also had to switch to a mac on my work about a year ago, and I still
miss SciTE dearly. I tried the macport version, but the size of GTK
and all its dependencies completely ruin the small footprint of the
SciTE.

[TomB]

> Could you share your binaries?
> I also had to switch to a mac on my work about a year ago, and I still
> miss SciTE dearly. I tried the macport version, but the size of GTK
> and all its dependencies completely ruin the small footprint of the
> SciTE.

Okay, I have zero experience distributing Mac apps, so you may have to
bear with me here. There is a zip file in the files section of the
group with both an app bundle and a readme.txt with some notes about
the binaries. You will probably have to install the GTK+OSX frameworks
(http://www.gtk-osx.org) in order to run it. Let me know if there are
any problems with it.

[fred]

On Feb 2, 6:18 pm, TomB <blind_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I have zero experience distributing Mac apps, so you may have to
> bear with me here.

Well, my experience with Mac app installation is barelly better: "drag
<app name> to Applications folder". :-)

> There is a zip file in the files section of the
> group with both an app bundle and a readme.txt with some notes about
> the binaries. You will probably have to install the GTK+OSX frameworks
> (http://www.gtk-osx.org) in order to run it. Let me know if there are
> any problems with it.

I downloaded the zip file and installed the GTK+OSX framework.
Unfortunatly I get the following error when I try to start SciTE:
Dyld Error Message:
Library not loaded: /Library/Frameworks/GLib.framework/Libraries/
libintl.8.dylib
Referenced from: /Users/admin/Library/Frameworks/GLib.framework/
Versions/2/GLib
Reason: image not found

The file is here and named correctly, and I currently investigate what
this error message really mean :-)
Could it be a version difference in the GTK+OSX framework? The one I
downloaded the precompiled version 2.14 beta from the site. They seem
to be no other versions available.
I also came across this page: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/OSX/AppBundles
Can it help you to build an app bundle?

[Cal Wilson]

Hi there,

Scite worked for me using the latest testing framework:
http://people.imendio.com/richard/stuff/Gtk-Framework-2.14.3-2-test1.dmg

HTH

cal.

[fred]

I managed to make it work. Apparently the Framework is "hardcoded/
linked" to look for its parts in <disk root>/Library/Frameworks/ , so
couple of symbolic links solved the problem. SciTE starts and seems to
work, so thank you TomB.
Now I was wandering if a static/portable version can be compiled.
Currently, SciTE executable and support files are 2.8MB, and the GTK
libraries are > 94MB, definitely too much for a "lite" editor. But
somehow windows UPXed version is only 400KB. UPX support Mach format,
so may be by linking SciTE statically and then compressing it a more
"manageable" (and portable) version can be achieved.
An other option would be to have the frameworks inside the SciTE.app/
Content folder, but I don't have a slightest idea of how to do it :-)

On Feb 5, 11:39 am, Cal Wilson <calwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scite worked for me using the latest testing framework:http://people.imendio.com/richard/stuff/Gtk-Framework-2.14.3-2-test1.dmg
>
> HTH

Thank you, will try it too. :-)

[TomB]

> I managed to make it work. Apparently the Framework is "hardcoded/
> linked" to look for its parts in <disk root>/Library/Frameworks/ , so
> couple of symbolic links solved the problem. SciTE starts and seems to
> work, so thank you TomB.
> Now I was wandering if a static/portable version can be compiled.
> Currently, SciTE executable and support files are 2.8MB, and the GTK
> libraries are > 94MB, definitely too much for a "lite" editor. But
> somehow windows UPXed version is only 400KB. UPX support Mach format,
> so may be by linking SciTE statically and then compressing it a more
> "manageable" (and portable) version can be achieved.
> An other option would be to have the frameworks inside the SciTE.app/
> Content folder, but I don't have a slightest idea of how to do it :-)

Agreed. A static version would be much better. I'm looking into it.

[Marcel Dejean]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM, fred <fre...@ibelgique.com> wrote:
> Now I was wandering if a static/portable version can be compiled.
> Currently, SciTE executable and support files are 2.8MB, and the GTK
> libraries are > 94MB, definitely too much for a "lite" editor. But
> somehow windows UPXed version is only 400KB. UPX support Mach format,

The windows version uses the native Windows API, so it does not
require GTK, which is why it is so small.
I'm suprised GTK2 is so large on OS X, are you sure that the runtimes
are >94 mb, not the development files? I would expect the GTK runtimes
to be ~10 MB, like on windows.

[TomB]

> The windows version uses the native Windows API, so it does not
> require GTK, which is why it is so small.
> I'm suprised GTK2 is so large on OS X, are you sure that the runtimes
> are >94 mb, not the development files? I would expect the GTK runtimes
> to be ~10 MB, like on windows.

The framework does include all the development files as well. As far
as I know, there is no runtime-only version.

[mitchell]

Hi,

> An other option would be to have the frameworks inside the SciTE.app/
> Content folder, but I don't have a slightest idea of how to do it :-)

This is not possible yet. GTK-OSX is a relatively young project. The
first framework was released in September of last year.

-Mitchell;

[vais]

I have switched to the Mac recently, and I have been going through
Scite withdrawals as well (hello, my name is Vais and I have been a
Scite user for 7 years). I actually own a copy of Textmate - it is a
great editor in its own right, and by all means do give it a shot
(there's a 30 day free trial version I believe).

If you want a text editor on OS X that actually carries Scite's DNA,
then do what I did and start using Mitchell's Textadept. Mitchell has
done great things with Scite, but Textadept is like the next step in
the evolution of a minimalist extensible text editor. It is entirely
customizable with Lua (saying that it is "customizable" with Lua does
not do it justice - the whole thing is written in Lua, with a sprinkle
of C code to glue it to Scintilla and GTK). That said, the project is
very new, and it relies on another very new project - GTK-OSX. So, be
nice to it :)

Textadept lives here: http://code.google.com/p/textadept/

Thanks,

Vais

[fred]

On Feb 7, 5:36 am, vais <vsalik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have switched to the Mac recently, and I have been going through
> Scite withdrawals as well (hello, my name is Vais and I have been a
> Scite user for 7 years).

Mine was only 5, but still enough to get addicted :-)

> I actually own a copy of Textmate - it is a
> great editor in its own right, and by all means do give it a shot
> (there's a 30 day free trial version I believe).

I like my software free, like the statue. :-)

> Textadept lives here:http://code.google.com/p/textadept/

Thank's for the tip, I missed it in my quest for Mac editor. Will give
it a try. But even current SciTE version by TomB beats it in terms of
size: 4MB vs 2.8. And both requires an installation of GTK-OSX :-(
On the bight side, at least they can share the one already installed.

On Feb 6, 3:31 pm, mitchell <mforal.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not possible yet. GTK-OSX is a relatively young project. The
> first framework was released in September of last year.

Pity. I thought that it was just a question of putting the right files
to the .app Framework folder and linking to them.
I hope that the next version of GTK-OSX will at least allow a user
level installation of the framework, in addition to the system wide.

[vais]

@fred:

> I like my software free, like the statue. :-)

I know where you're coming from fred, I love the core software I use
in my craft to be free both as in "the free press" and as in "free
beer".

> But even current SciTE version by TomB beats it in terms of size: 4MB vs 2.8.

Let me put these numbers into perspective for you, here are some
facts:

* Textmate download is 10.5 MB (this is for a NATIVE Cocoa app!!!)
* Textadept 1.4 download in 1.1 MB (not counting GTK-OSX, of course)
* Textadept 1.4 uncompressed is 3.9 MB, 1.1 MB of that is html
documentation, bringing the total to 2.8 MB.

> And both requires an installation of GTK-OSX :-(
> On the bight side, at least they can share the one already installed.

You are getting close to the point on the second line there. How many
megabytes of Win32 API does Scite on Windows require? Scite on Linux
uses GTK as well, BTW. Counting GTK as part of the software "weight"
is not fair. What if GTK was pre-installed with OS X and Windows like
it is on most Linux distros? Would it count then? I don't think so.

I understand where you are coming from - Scite is a real wonder in how
much and how well it accomplishes with so little, but you cannot blame
any of these editors, including Scite, for using GTK to provide cross-
platform portability. Blame your OS for MISSING the GTK libs :)

Hope this gives some food for thought. Small is beautiful, but all
small software stands on the shoulders of giant software beneath it,
whether the user realizes it or not.

Vais


On Feb 9, 4:36 am, fred <fre...@ibelgique.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 5:36 am, vais <vsalik...@gmail.com> wrote:> I have switched to theMacrecently, and I have been going through

> > Scite withdrawals as well (hello, my name is Vais and I have been a
> > Scite user for 7 years).
>
> Mine was only 5, but still enough to get addicted :-)
>
> > I actually own a copy of Textmate - it is a
> > great editor in its own right, and by all means do give it a shot
> > (there's a 30 day free trial version I believe).
>
> I like my software free, like the statue. :-)
>
> > Textadept lives here:http://code.google.com/p/textadept/
>

> Thank's for the tip, I missed it in my quest forMaceditor. Will give

[fred]

On Feb 12, 5:38 am, vais <vsalik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @fred:
> > I like my software free, like the statue. :-)
> I know where you're coming from fred, I love the core software I use
> in my craft to be free both as in "the free press" and as in "free
> beer".

So we understand each other.

> > But even current SciTE version by TomB beats it in terms of size: 4MB vs 2.8.

> * Textadept 1.4 uncompressed is 3.9 MB, 1.1 MB of that is html
> documentation, bringing the total to 2.8 MB.

Indeed, I missed the documentation overhead, thanks for pointing it
out. So basically SciTE and Textadept are the same size.

> I understand where you are coming from - Scite is a real wonder in how
> much and how well it accomplishes with so little, but you cannot blame
> any of these editors, including Scite, for using GTK to provide cross-
> platform portability. Blame your OS for MISSING the GTK libs :)

Oh, it is not the only think it misses in my opinion. :-) But being
what it is, I'd love to have a version on SciTE that is self-
contained, so I can move it around computers and give to friends, as
can be done with many "native" OSX apps.
An other reason for using SciTE is to have the same editor on all
platforms and share the configs.

> Hope this gives some food for thought. Small is beautiful, but all
> small software stands on the shoulders of giant software beneath it,
> whether the user realizes it or not.

Yes, of course, but I still think that a thin 500kb layer on top of
RichEdit will be faster and have a smaller memory footprint than a
20MB "small and fast" editors that flood the Internet.
I'd love to see a native Cocoa SciTE, but this just won't go to
happen, because SciTE people don't have time to support an other
proprietary API, and OSX people will not use anything that comes from
outside Apple. So the GTK-OSX solution is fine for me. And like I
said, can't wait to test a self-contained version. Hope TomB will be
able to make one soon.

[Philippe Lhoste]

On 12/02/2009 05:38, vais wrote:
> You are getting close to the point on the second line there. How many
> megabytes of Win32 API does Scite on Windows require? Scite on Linux
> uses GTK as well, BTW. Counting GTK as part of the software "weight"
> is not fair. What if GTK was pre-installed with OS X and Windows like
> it is on most Linux distros? Would it count then? I don't think so.

Yes and no... :-)
You are right, but basically that's the problem of using native resources vs. making
portable applications.
SciTE is somewhere in the middle... Theoretically, the platform layer could be extended to
use native resources of MacOS (or any other system).
The megabytes of Win32 DLLs are already on our system, you don't have to install them.
Idem for GTK+ on most Linux systems, as you point out.
But if I install Gimp, TortoiseHg (Mercurial), Wireshark, and some other free softwares
coming from the Linux ecosystem, I just end up with n copies of GTK+ DLLs. All
incompatible with each other, probably, showing the idea of re-usable DLLs (or, probably,
SO files as well, etc.) is theoretical and actually unusable.
But in the end, these libraries count in the install volume and actually add up.

Note there is similar problems with Java applications, Qt applications, not to mention
other GUI frameworks.

> Hope this gives some food for thought. Small is beautiful, but all
> small software stands on the shoulders of giant software beneath it,
> whether the user realizes it or not.

Sure. Anyway, concept of small change over time. 10 years ago, I was shocked that Python
or Perl for Windows was 8MB archives. It was a lot compared to the 6GB of hard disk I had
at the time. And compared to Lua (with minimalist libraries!).
Now, the 12MB install files seem quite small... :-D We have faster Internet connections,
bigger and faster hard disks, more memory to run all this.

I am still happy when I can use a 1~3MB freeware instead of a 36MB behemoth, but frankly
that's no longer a major concern.

--
Philippe Lhoste
-- (near) Paris -- France
-- http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

[soft_...@126.com]

>
> I have switched to the Mac recently, and I have been going through
> Scite withdrawals as well (hello, my name is Vais and I have been a
> Scite user for 7 years). I actually own a copy of Textmate - it is a
> great editor in its own right, and by all means do give it a shot
> (there's a 30 day free trial version I believe).
>
> If you want a text editor on OS X that actually carries Scite's DNA,
> then do what I did and start using Mitchell's Textadept. Mitchell has
> done great things with Scite, but Textadept is like the next step in
> the evolution of a minimalist extensible text editor. It is entirely
> customizable with Lua (saying that it is "customizable" with Lua does
> not do it justice - the whole thing is written in Lua, with a sprinkle
> of C code to glue it to Scintilla and GTK). That said, the project is
> very new, and it relies on another very new project - GTK-OSX. So, be
> nice to it :)
>
> Textadept lives here: http://code.google.com/p/textadept/
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vais
>

Textadept looks what I would expect for a lightweight multipurpose
text editor but for two things I cannot use it at present. First it
crashes on Leopard while opening text files containing CJK characters.
Second, the tex lexer does not support folding which I am too much
used to while using SciTE. I suppose the second problem could be
resolved without much effort, but I don't have any idea on how to
achieve this. The first problem seems more severe and I hope Mitchell
would look into it if he sees this message.

[Vais Salikhov]

Hello, instanton,

Textadept is definitely not without issues, but it is in active
development and Mitchell is passionate about making it work.

Make sure you try the latest release - some issues with binary files
crashing the program on OS X have been resolved in 1.4. Not sure what
the problem with CJK chars can be - it may or may not have been
resolved by fixing the binary files problem. In any case, this sounds
like an encoding issue, and I don't see it as a permanent problem.

Once again, my point was "just start using it" - the more people use
it, the faster edge cases will be addressed. You just have to go for
it and make it happen for yourself, and not wait for a perfect editor
to just appear on the radar complete with everything you ever wanted
in one. And by "you", I mean "me" ;)

On the issue of folding, this is lexer-specific. At this moment none
of the lexers afaik implement custom folding - all folding is
indentation-based. However, custom folding based on syntax is a
feature of textadept's lexers, it just needs to be implemented by
someone. Lexers are very well documented, so anyone with a real desire
to make it work and some knowledge of Lua should be able to dive in
and figure it out (and Mitchell is usually there to lend a hand if you
are serious about making it work and did your homework).

All that said, textadept is not quite a polished "product" that is
guaranteed to meet all your needs - you must be somewhat of a tinkerer
and be willing to participate in it's development. The easiest way to
get started is to just start using it for some tasks, if not for all,
and submit issues you find to the issue tracking system on google
code. You see, I have never loaded a file that contains CJK chars, and
probably neither has Mitchell. If you submit an issue and attach a
sample file, then this issue at least stands a chance of being
addressed.

Vais

Sent from my iPhone

[mitchell]

Hi,

> Textadept looks what I would expect for a lightweight multipurpose  
> text editor but for two things I cannot use it at present. First it  
> crashes on Leopard while opening text files containing CJK characters.  

> <snip>

> The first problem seems more severe and I hope Mitchell  
> would look into it if he sees this message.

GTK-OSX is a relatively young project and its Pango cannot render most
CJK characters.

-Mitchell;