On Sunday, 22 December 2019 at 17:20:51 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
> There are lots of editors/IDE's that support D language: https://wiki.dlang.org/Editors
>
> What kind of editor/IDE are you using and which one do you like the most?

I use Notepad++ on Windows and Bluefish on Linux. I'm a minimalist guy, I prefer a light text editor than a heavy IDE.

On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 at 16:43:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
But now that VS Code's
> performance is within my tolerance range

Just curious what you mean by this, Mike.

On Sunday, 22 December 2019 at 17:20:51 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
> What kind of editor/IDE are you using and which one do you like the most?

I was using PSPad up until a few months ago when I realized Notepad++ (finally) has a 64-bit version of the Explorer plugin. With custom GtkD syntax highlighting for both, it was Notepad++'s ability to show me my working system directory in a sidebar on start-up that got me to switch. PSPad will show it, but only after I manually switch from project view.

On Wednesday, 25 December 2019 at 10:57:45 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 at 16:43:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> But now that VS Code's
>> performance is within my tolerance range
>
> Just curious what you mean by this, Mike.

For a while, typing in VS Code was clunky compared to Sublime. I gave it a spin every couple of months to see how it was shaping up and eventually I stopped noticing the difference.

On Wednesday, 25 December 2019 at 13:32:45 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

> For a while, typing in VS Code was clunky compared to Sublime. I gave it a spin every couple of months to see how it was shaping up and eventually I stopped noticing the difference.

Ah! Good to know. Thanks, Mike. Once they add a proper file explorer sidebar, I may switch.

On Thursday, 26 December 2019 at 10:15:17 UTC, Ron Tarrant wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 December 2019 at 13:32:45 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
>> For a while, typing in VS Code was clunky compared to Sublime. I gave it a spin every couple of months to see how it was shaping up and eventually I stopped noticing the difference.
>
> Ah! Good to know. Thanks, Mike. Once they add a proper file explorer sidebar, I may switch.

I am not sure wheter you talk about the same issue but the explorer view was also the only reason VSC was totally unusable for me. The lack of file/folder icons really questionable.
Recently I found out that it is possible to configure them.

Kind regards
Andre

On Thursday, 26 December 2019 at 10:32:10 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:

> I am not sure wheter you talk about the same issue but the explorer view was also the only reason VSC was totally unusable for me. The lack of file/folder icons really questionable.
> Recently I found out that it is possible to configure them.

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Thanks, Andre.

On Tue, 2019-12-24 at 09:52 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:18:49AM +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:

[…]
> Haha, well, a *real* hardcore retro guy would be using a magnet, a
> pin,
> and a *really* steady hand, to flip individual bits on an exposed
> harddisk platter to create the executable in the filesystem directly,
> one bit at a time.
> 
> Of course, one could also just use emacs:
> 
> 	https://xkcd.com/378/
> 
> :-D

One always returns to using Emacs for text editing – it is the One True Editor™ (and kitchen sink).

[…]
> It wasn't so much wrong highlighting for me, it was the fact that it
> was
> highlighted at all.  I find the kaleidoscopic colors extremely
> distracting and disruptive to my focusing on the textual content of
> the
> code.  Not to mention that the colors usually clash horribly with my
> chosen foreground/background color scheme in my terminal, which only
> adds unreadable bits of text to the problem.

Emacs and JetBrains CLion seem to work fine for me in both light-on- dark and dark-on-light mode, so syntax highlighting works for me for the editors I use.

I keep trying VIM, Atom, VSCode, SublimeText, Geany, etc. from time to time, but I get bored trying to get them set up to be even remotely sensible and just go back to Emacs.

[…]
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't mind a syntax-oriented editor, if one could be
> made
> that wasn't artificially restrictive in terms of editing various
> different languages and various different flavors of different
> languages, such that it could be used as a general tool.

There is a movement to try and bring back what could be described as SOEs, but I am not seeing that much traction as yet. The incumbent editors that use vast quantities of CPU to reconstruct ASTs on the fly seem to dominate mindset.

[…]
> 
> This madness is nothing compared to the utter, gibbering insanity of
> modern web design, in which modern 8-core CPUs with GHz speeds and
> GBs
> of memory run dead-simple applications like word processors at the
> *same* speeds (if not worse!) as WordStar would run back in 1980 on
> an 8
> *Hz* CPU with 64KB of RAM.  With exactly the same lag between
> keystrokes, and the same (lack of) reliability requiring frequent
> backups and incessant restarting.
> 
> Now *that* I call a mad, mad world.  The madness of IDEs parsing and
> reparsing the same AST over and over again umpteen times per second
> doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of *this* madness. I just
> can't wait to see some poor sod attempt to reimplement a modern IDE
> in
> Javascript and succeed at reproducing 1980's IDE speeds and (lack of)
> quality.  And of course the masses would slobber all over it and hail
> it
> as "progress".  The browser king has no clothes, and everybody sees
> invisible.

I can only agree with this rant. The modern world of software has
increasingly become about doing less and less useful to the end user
with more and more hardware resources.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On 12/24/19 5:18 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 08:09 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
> wrote:
> […]
>>
>> No idea, I use vanilla vim (not even with syntax highlighting -- I'm
>> a
>> hardcore retro guy).
> 
> Surely a hardcore retro guy would be using vi not vim? Indeed wouldn't
> a real hardcore retro guy be using ed?
> 

Pfffft. Real hardcore users use ed.

 When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
 *and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like,
 'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor
 that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

 Ed, man! !man ed

 ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)

 NAME
 ed - text editor

 SYNOPSIS
 ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
 DESCRIPTION
 Ed is the standard text editor.
 -----

 Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
 alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
 because it's ED!

 "Ed is the standard text editor."

 And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
 -rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs

 Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
 Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
 message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
 and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

 "Ed is the standard text editor."

 Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

 golem> ed

 ?
 help
 ?
 ?
 ?
 quit
 ?
 exit
 ?
 bye
 ?
 hello?
 ?
 eat flaming death
 ?
 ^C
 ?
 ^C
 ?
 ^D
 ?

 ---
 Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
 generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
 the novice with verbosity.

 "Ed is the standard text editor."

 Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

 ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF
 EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR
 PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
 SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

 When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
 help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
 Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
 ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

 TEXT EDITOR.

 When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
 "edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
 you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

 Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
 are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
 not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
 SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO
 TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

 --
 Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
 miquels@cistron.nl | eventually eliminating it.

--------

I left in the byline above, because I don't want to take credit ;)

-Steve

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:18:49AM +0000, Russel Winder via
>> Surely a hardcore retro guy would be using vi not vim?

On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 at 17:52:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Haha, well, a *real* hardcore retro guy would be using a magnet, a pin, and a *really* steady hand, to flip individual bits on an exposed harddisk platter to create the executable in the filesystem directly, one bit at a time.
>
> Of course, one could also just use emacs:

You guys crack me up. :)