Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote: >> Windows text editors are not normal: most are devoid of all but the most >> primitive functions and are further hampered by having an interface that >> required frequent time wasting hand transfers from keyboard to mouse >> because, if they provide keyboard equivalents at all, these are >> remarkably unmemorable and/or undocumented. > > well ultra-edit, textpad, source-insight etc. pp are better than that > (and run on windows)
I said MOST, not all! To your list I'd add PFE and a Windows port of microEmacs, which has almost nothing in common with EMACS except some key bindings. But to return to your point: how many Windows users actually install the editors we've listed? I bet most never get past Wordpad. I've even found people using Word, of all things, to edit BAT files and program source. I'd give long odds that Windows users who use editors other than Wordpad are using the one that came with whatever IDE they've installed, simply because integrated editors are much more common in Windows-only IDEs that they are on *nixen. My guess is that this is because the standard editors (Wordpad, edlin) are so bad. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
