From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   [ stripped address list from irrelevant X-posts for this part ]   
      
   On 15.01.2025 15:04, Newyana2 wrote:   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >  If you're going to edit HTML very often it makes sense to find   
   > an HTML-specific editor with syntax highlighting at the very   
   > least. The trouble with generic editors like vim, emacs, notepad++,   
   > etc, is that they're really just text editors that support rudimentary   
   > colorcoding for 50 languages.   
      
   Where did you get that number from?   
      
   Even my old Vim installation supports syntax files for already   
   ~550 languages.   
      
   But Vim has them not hard-coded or tightly coupled; it provides   
   a syntax-language to map arbitrary syntax descriptions onto the   
   actual language-specific visible highlighting. Most flexible and   
   maintaining a terse interface; as opposed to hard-coded features   
   in specialized tools you don't buy the complexity from languages   
   you don't use.   
      
   > Like a 50-bit screwdriver, they don't   
   > work very well for any particular screw.   
      
   What is that supposed to mean?   
      
   If you introduce a new language or want support for something yet   
   non-existing you can just provide a new syntax description file   
   for that language. So the syntax coloring is as good as the syntax   
   description for any language had been designed. Moreover you can   
   expect mature syntax descriptions bundled with the Vim package for   
   any common any many even uncommon languages.   
      
   >   
   >     I just tried Vim for the first time.   
      
   I see.   
      
   Yet you obviously don't know it but nonetheless spread FUD. You   
   better inform yourself beforehand before getting in rage.   
      
   > It looks like a relic from 1980,   
      
   Vim *is* based on an editor from around 1980 (the Vi: ~1976).   
      
   But it is not a "relic". The excellent concepts of Vi are the   
   base for Vim. And Vim is (as Emacs) still widely used by folks   
   that do text editing professionally (specifically in the IT).   
      
   > without even support for non-fixed-width fonts. Really?   
      
   You are confusing a text editor with a word processor.   
      
   If use of proportional fonts is all what comes to your mind when   
   editing a text then you've obviously never experienced powerful   
   editing with any of the flag-ships of text editors (Vim, Emacs,   
   for example).   
      
   > That's your favorite editor? Few people   
   > actually hand-code HTML anymore, but there must still be decent   
   > editors around.   
      
   Here I agree with you. - There's often specialized tools for   
   specific sources or tasks that may have one or another specific   
   advantage for that specific type of source.   
      
   The point with text editors is that they are basically (widely)   
   agnostic about the text; they focus on the *powerful* _editing_   
   capabilities, and the same powerful editor tool (whatever editor   
   you prefer) can be used used for all sorts of texts; you don't   
   need to learn a dozen or more peculiar tools but can work with   
   your editor of choice. In other words, you can most efficiently   
   operate even on any (standard or special) format, and the better   
   editors also provide means to support higher-level specialized   
   operations (but that just aside).   
      
   Since you don't really know, and less understand, the concepts   
   of the editors you should be careful with your comments on that.   
      
   Specifically I would not suggest to you trying the Vim editor;   
   it's learning curve is too steep for someone who is fast with   
   spreading opinions without having any knowledge about it. Vim   
   is certainly no quick-to-get-into software.   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)