Welcome to the IDM Forum. This forum is meant as a user-to-user support mechanism where users can share knowledge and tips for all IDM software.
Since these forums are user-to-user based, IDM does not regularly read or reply to the posts in this forum. For problem reports, suggestions, or feature requests, you must email us directly. Our trained technical support staff answers most inquiries within 30 minutes.
I often knock off a 20 line KEXX macro to handle some special case (like editting Wireshark telegrams that meet certain weird column-based criteria); how easy is it to do something comparative in UE?
rhapdog wrote:I used Xedit as well, as well as EDIT and EDGAR before it. Having learned programming on the IBM Mainframes, what else would I have used? I later picked up an editor with no name for DOS, just E.EXE. It was one of IBM's internal company programming editors never released to the public.
rhapdog wrote:I hated getting away from the command line. I used to think that if you weren't doing it from the command line, you weren't a real programmer. However, I have learned that I can be much more efficient than I used to be by learning new ways of doing things.
UltraEdit.document[index].write("// Script Name: ");
'text // Script Name: '
rhapdog wrote:How painful was it for me to make the switch? Hey, I jumped from using DOS/DESQview, a Unix (not Linux) Server with XWindows, to Windows 95 and a Novell Server (because of the company I was working for), I was already complaining a lot.
rhapdog wrote:It may be painful at first to have to get used to a new way of doing things, but rest assured, after you've had a few months under your belt learning all there is to UE and its powerful scripting language, the features, the ability to run your scripts on files from the command prompt, the ability to run command line utilities and pipe them through to be filtered into your editor and worked with.... I could go on and on about the features that you will discover only after digging into it extensively, but let me tell you it will all be well worth it.
rhapdog wrote:Yeah, I probably told a bit about my age telling you what I started out working with as editors, but I don't care. If someone like me can make the switch and learn to love it, you can too.
rhapdog wrote:When it comes to editors that can handle the unicode properly, there is no better editor on the market. It is hands down the most powerful text editor available today, and it's on the Windows platform.
rhapdog wrote:Personally, I've moved up to using UEStudio. It has all the features of UltraEdit, but adds quite a few extras to make it a full-fledged IDE instead of just the most powerful editor on the planet. Imagine an Integrated Development Environment that has an editor like that built in!
billdehaan wrote:I expect that whichever way I go, it will be painful enough that I want to select an editor that I can stick with for another 15 years before going through this again.
billdehaan wrote:I've been reading some hyper critical reviews of UE http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/UltraEdit/976352095/1?all_reviews), but I've read several other glowing reviews, so I'm trying to do a fair Kedit/UE comparison.
billdehaan wrote:Not to be contrary, but have you looked at MultiEdit? It also claims to be the most powerful.
billdehaan wrote:the only thing close was this forum entry: http://www.zeusedit.com/zforum/viewtopic.php?t=200, which of course claims Zeus is better than either, but at least points out things about ME and UE I'll want to check).
billdehaan wrote:I've read the reviews. Someone mentioned that you're better off starting with UE than UES, since features are added to UE long before UES gets them. Also, you can move up from UE to UES, but it's more difficult to go back. I'm going to play with UE for 30 days and see how it goes.
billdehaan wrote:The idea of a commercial editor is foreign to them, and anything derived from an IBM mainframe is before most of them were born. Suffice to say, talking about XEdit features really shows the generational divide. I wasn't sure if anyone had taken the plunge from Kedit to UE, but the fact that you've done it, and recommend it, is probably the best recommendation I can think of for me to invest in UE and give it a fair shake.
I would like to stress that an editor is probably the most important tool for programmers, therefore one needs to choose it wisely. A popular consideration that easy to learn editor (for example Pico or Notepad) is the best does not withstand any critique. An editor is too important tool for programmers to settle for the basic capabilities and it's a big disadvantage to select a mediocre or even primitive solution just because it's simple to learn. Any professional programmer needs a professional editor.
The main problem that I see is that people tent to stick to whatever editor they got used to first and even became emotionally attached to the "first choice".
The author argues that programmable editors are worth studying like programming languages and a powerful editor is huge advantage from the point of view of reaching high productively (and avoiding many typical frustrations).
rhapdog wrote:If you want to do this long term, consider a lifetime license. That's the best way to go. Stay current. IDM is a strong company and isn't going anywhere. With the number of users they have world-wide, you will have support for your product for life.
rhapdog wrote:These "bad" reviews are obviously from people who did not properly study or learn to use their editor.
rhapdog wrote:Yes. I have. It just can't do everything that UltraEdit does. It is also considerably more expensive. For my money, UE is the best deal. They may "claim" to be the most powerful, but when I state that UE is the most powerful, it isn't just a claim from IDM, it is a claim by the People's Choice Awards, Shareware Industry, numerous magazine publications, and numerous 3rd party reviews.
rhapdog wrote:If you Google for "Most powerful text editor for Windows", you will find many reviews that have a "list" of most powerful editors. I have seen "10 most powerful", "15 most powerful", "5 most powerful", etc., but have not once seen MultiEdit in a most powerful list. UE, in each of those, was stated to be the most powerful (at least the ones I looked at when I Googled this morning.)
rhapdog wrote:I read that just now. Zeus is laughable compared to UE. This is also an old post, and some of the things stated about UE were either in ignorance, or have been fixed since then. Not one negative he listed is currently true of UE.
rhapdog wrote:The time frame can be a couple of weeks, or a month, sometimes as long as 2 months. This is not a make or break time period to wait on the features to migrate over to UES, especially considering that once you get those features, they will be stable and you won't have to patch it later after being frustrated by the bug you found.
rhapdog wrote:The real way you need to evaluate it is do you need to "compile" your programs from projects. If you're coworkers are using Visual Studio, and you're working from the same compiler that they are, then you'll find that once you get UES up and running, it will offer you features to handle multiple project files to allow them to interact in ways you can't do with UE.
rhapdog wrote:Seriously, take a good look at the UE/UES comparison before you make a final decision.
http://www.ultraedit.com/products/uestu ... ences.html
rhapdog wrote:The author argues that programmable editors are worth studying like programming languages and a powerful editor is huge advantage from the point of view of reaching high productively (and avoiding many typical frustrations).
That is good advice for anyone.
billdehaan wrote:As you can imagine, I've got a number of KEXX macros that parse the output of the build process and feed it back in so Kedit can deal with it directly.
billdehaan wrote:Just checking my Kedit macros directory, I see I've written 40,383 lines of macros over the years.
rhapdog wrote:I was thinking about that. With a little modification, you may be able to convert your KEXX macros into REXX, then run them from a REXX Interpreter like Regina as a Tool from within UltraEdit. Certainly not all macros will be able to be converted, but most should, I would think. Some may not require converting at all, if it doesn't use the KEXX specific subset.
rhapdog wrote:Yeah, I'd definitely see if some of that can be converted to REXX and run through Regina. No sense in wasting it. If you could do that, you'd probably have something serious to share with the community.
billdehaan wrote:I've also found that the C++ function listing finds duplicate headers on lines that aren't headers.
Macro "test" line 12 col 1 - Error 109 Unmatched "/*" or quote
Mofi wrote:The strings listed in the function list view are found by UltraEdit regular expressions defined in the wordfile c_cplusplus.uew. Click on Advanced - Configuration - Editor Display - Syntax Highlighting, select language C/C++, and press the button Open to open this wordfile. Close the configuration dialog with button Cancel.
Mofi wrote:See for example newlines in C function definition between function name and round bracket and other topics where I helped users to find the regular expression best matching their functions.
Mofi wrote:UltraEdit is very powerful and can be highly customized to personal needs. But that requires time, time to explore all the functions of this amazing editor and time to customize it for efficient work with it.
if( UltraEdit.activeDocument.findReplace.find("Last Revision: ") == true )
var s = DateTimeString();
Mofi wrote:Therefore this setting should not be enabled on script development.
Mofi wrote:The wordfiles, especially those on the user-submitted wordfiles page, are written by users and IDM has not checked any of them on correctness. If you find a mistake in one of the user contributed wordfiles, please correct it and send the updated wordfile packed with ZIP as attachment by email to IDM support with the request to replace the wordfile with same name on their server.
Mofi wrote:I looked into tcctcmd11.uew and could already see that the String Chars = definition can't be correct because only up to 2 characters can be defined as string starting and ending characters and not 3 as done in this wordfile. A marker characters definition could be used for highlighting a third type of strings within a line. But if straight single quote character is not used for strings (in your files), just remove it from first line.
Mofi wrote:There is the scripting command UltraEdit.activeDocument.cancelSelect(); which discards current selection without changing the caret position.
Mofi wrote:I develop UltraEdit scripts always with View - Views/Lists - Tag List window open and tag group UE/UES Script Commands selected to get help on inserting UltraEdit specific scripting commands and avoid mistakes.
Mofi wrote:That helps the lazy script writers, but has unfortunately the bad side effect that some properties and commands are not useful anymore or are of less usage. I have requested long time ago additional properties which contain the information of editing environment before UltraEdit defines it for the script and commands which can define the editing environment also after script finished.
Mofi wrote:Line and block comment highlighting have a higher priority than string highlighting. Quotes in comments should be completely ignored for string highlighting. If this is not the case, the line and block comment definitions are not correct specified in the wordfile. If the language does not support multi-line string highlighting, the keyword DisableMLS should be used on first line of the wordfile anywhere left the File Extesions = definition which must be always the last one on first line.