DOS ain't dead - Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Damien

08.05.2013, 09:55
(edited by Damien, 08.05.2013, 12:37)

Which text editor do you use for dos programming? (Developers)

Hello,

Up to now, under DOS, I've been using 2 kinds of text editor : the standard "EDIT" and the one included in RHIDE (for DJGPP).

The main drawback of these editor is that they are displayed in (default) text-mode, which is efficient but displays only 25 lines * 80 columns, in standard (bios) font.

As this kind of display can be appropriate with old 14" CRT, on today's screen (19" or more), it would be better to display more text...
Is there a solution for this ? Some kind of text editor that would display in graphic mode (for example 1024*768), with several fonts and size ?

In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

ron

Australia,
08.05.2013, 13:57

@ Damien

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> The main drawback of these editor is that they are displayed in (default)
> text-mode, which is efficient but displays only 25 lines * 80 columns, in
> standard (bios) font.
>
> As this kind of display can be appropriate with old 14" CRT, on today's
> screen (19" or more), it would be better to display more text...
> Is there a solution for this ? Some kind of text editor that would display
> in graphic mode (for example 1024*768), with several fonts and size ?
>
> In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

I use PEDIT for programming in DOS.
I used to use a word processor, but that was a long time ago when I didn't know any better.

But if you are really looking for fonts and such stuff, you are possibly better off with a word processor.

See if there is something you like here:
http://www.resoo.org/docs/dos/free_software/txtedit1.htm

---
AUSREG Consultancy http://www.ausreg.com
Tadpole Tunes http://www.tadpoletunes.com
Sna Keo Il http://www.tadpoletunes.com/sna_keo_il/

Damien

10.05.2013, 11:46

@ ron

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> I use PEDIT for programming in DOS.
> I used to use a word processor, but that was a long time ago when I didn't
> know any better.
>
> But if you are really looking for fonts and such stuff, you are possibly
> better off with a word processor.
>
> See if there is something you like here:
> http://www.resoo.org/docs/dos/free_software/txtedit1.htm

Thanks for your answer, I will probably try PEDIT. And it's an interesting link.

Rugxulo

Usono,
08.05.2013, 15:49

@ Damien

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> Up to now, under DOS, I've been using 2 kinds of text editor : the standard
> "EDIT" and the one included in RHIDE (for DJGPP).

IIRC, FD EDIT supports 80x25 (all?), 80x43 (EGA), 80x50 (VGA), at least (8x16,8x14,8x8 fonts). Usually people only prefer *.CPI (or *.CPX) fonts for their 8-bit NLS needs, otherwise default is sufficient. You may have to use VESA to get beyond 80x50. And there are apparently many other 8-bit console textmode fonts.

setmxx
loadfont
setlines
svgatextmode

> The main drawback of these editor is that they are displayed in (default)
> text-mode, which is efficient but displays only 25 lines * 80 columns, in
> standard (bios) font.

FD MODE can be used to switch to 80x25,80x28,80x43,80x50. Most well-designed apps either directly support such mode changes or let you enable it yourself (e.g. "fed blah.txt -43").

Are you just wishing to use higher resolution or different glyphs or edit text in different encodings? E.g. Mined or GNU Emacs should be good, if you can live with (relatively) limited console 8-bit textmode fonts.

> As this kind of display can be appropriate with old 14" CRT, on today's
> screen (19" or more), it would be better to display more text...
> Is there a solution for this ? Some kind of text editor that would display
> in graphic mode (for example 1024*768), with several fonts and size ?

Blocek is graphical and has Unicode support. (AFAIK, you have to be graphical to support huge fonts like those needing various Unicode glyphs, most of which is for CJK anyways.) Though keep in mind that an appropriate font [glyph? typeface?] has nothing to do with text encoding. You can edit Unicode in a pure 7-bit DOS interface, just maybe not as comfortably.

> In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

Georg's FLWriter 1.2 tried to be some kind of graphical word processor. Unfortunately, for me at least, it seemed to crash a lot (esp. open file dialog). It had some fonts and such things like bold, underline, etc. It more or less preferred XHTML but could partially convert between a few others (RTF, PS).

As mentioned, if you need a word processor, that's totally different, esp. regarding (programming) text editors. I don't know of any good, full-featured, free/libre word processors for DOS. As I mentioned recently on freedos-user, I found WP2LateX, a converter to LateX (TeX, METAFONT, etc, whatever). So I guess you could do it manually by hardcoding markup in TeX or whatever and use that to produce .DVI, .PS, .PDF, etc. There are LateX modes in some editors (e.g. GNU Emacs, JED).

Regarding programming editors, most people prefer VIM or GNU Emacs. Both of those have DOS builds but may not be exactly what you want if you're wanting to support lots of human languages as, obviously, you'd need graphical + fonts to show more than 255 glyphs at once. (Neither of those, AFAIK, has a graphical DOS build.) Blocek is far superior in this manner, but it lacks the various add-ons, plugins, scripting, etc. that those editors offer, though if you can live with an inferior interface with those, you can still edit almost anything.

RHIDE is basically a dead project. I don't know where Robert Hoehne is, but I don't gather that he's worked on it in years. It was based upon SETEDIT and the *nix C++ port of Turbo Vision. (SETEDIT still seems to barely be kicking. Latest actual version is from 2010, but he seems to only provide lots of *nix binaries these days. I don't think he's officially updated the DOS binary since almost nine years, e.g. 0.5.4.) The latest RHIDE binary I know of is Andris Pavenis' unofficial build circa 2005 called 1.5c. It allegedly can't be compiled with anything newer than G++ 3.3.6 (and uses GDB 6.3). I'm not sure its debugger supports anything beyond COFF very well, and COFF basically doesn't work (much? at all?) with GCC 4.5.x and newer (though GDB 7.6 has been ported to DJGPP, which works well with DWARF, but RHIDE is too old, I guess).

So what would I suggest you use?

For just random text editing, use whatever you like. I prefer TDE, mostly from habit, because it does most things I need. I don't personally like DOS EDIT (or clones), but for small stuff it's okay.

For programming stuff, again, use whatever works. There are billions of text editors, even for "obsolete" platforms ;-) , so you should have plenty to choose from. Most savvy people seem to love VIM. Others like GNU Emacs. Others prefer various others, e.g. Joe (or Jupp), JED, FED, FTE, VILE, DOS Navigator (etc.), etc.

For multilingual text editing, I suggest sticking with Mined or Blocek, though GNU Emacs 23.3 (DJGPP) is fairly good, if you can live with it.

For word processing, dunno, it's too complicated. Most people would suggest using a modern OS with a modern suite of tools (e.g. LibreOffice, Abiword, Ted, Lyx, Texmacs). But I don't really do word processing (and apparently there are a bazillion formats and other worries there), so I have no real answer.

Damien 10.05.2013, 11:54 @ Rugxulo	Which text editor do you use for dos programming? Post reply
	Thank you for all this information ! I didn't know there were so many editors available under DOS... I don't need word processor, the first thing I need is more than 80columns and more than 25 lines.

Laaca

Czech republic,
10.05.2013, 20:08

@ Damien

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

The possibility of using more than 80 columns depends on your videocard. Most videocards support text videomode 132x43 or 132x50.
Advanced test editors can set and use this resolution. I personaly prefer SetEdit which can do it.
If your card does not know 132x43(50) mode it still after some hacking should be able to display 90x28(34,50) mode. It is not standard mode but after some tweaking it is possible. With some trick SetEdit can set and use this resolution too but it is not so easy. You could try Necromancers DOS navigator (NDN) which has (besides powerful filemanager) also built-in nice text editor. NDN can set and use many tweaked videomodes like 90x28(34,50)

Another interresting possibility is to use some external utility which tweaks your videocard even more. But in this solution you have to use only such editor which does not try to set some own mode but accepts some mode already set.
Try this utility http://laaca.sweb.cz/stm.rar
It partialy depends on your specific videochip - sometimes it can do a lot, sometimes not so much.

So far I wrote only about text editors for textmode.
There are however few DOS text editors working in graphics mode. I don't remember their names from head but probably best is FlWriter by Georg Potthast.

---
DOS-u-akbar!

RayeR

CZ,
14.05.2013, 16:27

@ Laaca

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

BTW what DOS/BIOS service or call to get current mode height?
It should work under DJGPP and also under NTVDM.
(e.g. if I'd like to pause printing after screen is filled)

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

tom Germany (West), 14.05.2013, 17:27 @ RayeR	Which text editor do you use for dos programming? Post reply
	> BTW what DOS/BIOS service or call to get current mode height? > It should work under DJGPP and also under NTVDM. > (e.g. if I'd like to pause printing after screen is filled) ir.x.ax = 0x1130; /* get number of lines / ir.x.bx = 0; int86x(0x10,&ir,&ir,&sr); _vmaxline = ir.h.dl; OR _vmaxcol = (uchar far )0x0000044al; // 40:4a _vmaxline = (uchar far *)0x00000484l; // 40:84

RayeR

CZ,
15.05.2013, 00:09

@ tom

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> > BTW what DOS/BIOS service or call to get current mode height?
> > It should work under DJGPP and also under NTVDM.
> > (e.g. if I'd like to pause printing after screen is filled)
>
> ir.x.ax = 0x1130; /* get number of lines */
> ir.x.bx = 0;
> int86x(0x10,&ir,&ir,&sr);
> _vmaxline = ir.h.dl;
>
>
> OR
> _vmaxcol = *(uchar far *)0x0000044al; // 40:4a
> _vmaxline = *(uchar far *)0x00000484l; // 40:84

Thx, is there some difference in compatability under various VMs, DOS boxes etc or does it works always the same?

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.05.2013, 00:56

@ RayeR

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> Thx, is there some difference in compatability under various VMs, DOS boxes
> etc or does it works always the same?

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/id/63/1.html

101130 Category: video INT 10 - VIDEO - GET FONT INFORMATION (EGA, MCGA, VGA) AX = 1130h BH = pointer specifier 00h INT 1Fh pointer 01h INT 43h pointer 02h ROM 8x14 character font pointer 03h ROM 8x8 double dot font pointer 04h ROM 8x8 double dot font (high 128 characters) 05h ROM alpha alternate (9 by 14) pointer (EGA,VGA) 06h ROM 8x16 font (MCGA, VGA) 07h ROM alternate 9x16 font (VGA only) (see #00021) 11h (UltraVision v2+) 8x20 font (VGA) or 8x19 font (autosync EGA) 12h (UltraVision v2+) 8x10 font (VGA) or 8x11 font (autosync EGA) Return: ES:BP = specified pointer CX = bytes/character of on-screen font (not the requested font!) DL = highest character row on screen Note: for UltraVision v2+, the 9xN alternate fonts follow the corresponding 8xN font at ES:BP+256N BUG: the IBM EGA and some other EGA cards return in DL the number of rows on screen rather than the highest row number (which is one less). SeeAlso: AX=1100h,AX=1103h,AX=1120h,INT 1F"SYSTEM DATA",INT 43"VIDEO DATA"

RayeR

CZ,
28.05.2013, 19:32

@ tom

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> ir.x.ax = 0x1130; /* get number of lines */
> ir.x.bx = 0;
> int86x(0x10,&ir,&ir,&sr);
> _vmaxline = ir.h.dl;

Thx, works under NTVDM too...

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

georgpotthast

Germany,
15.05.2013, 13:09

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

Hi Rugxulo,

let me comment on your severe condemnation of FlWriter:

> Georg's FLWriter 1.2 tried to be some kind of graphical word processor.
> Unfortunately, for me at least, it seemed to crash a lot (esp. open file
> dialog). It had some fonts and such things like bold, underline, etc. It
> more or less preferred XHTML but could partially convert between a few
> others (RTF, PS).
>

I only release software that does not crash here. I also have not heard from users of FlWriter that it does crash. However, I believe that you observe the crashes you mention, but maybe you could test it a bit further and report: "it works fine as long as I do not load the xyz driver." ;-)

> Georg's FLWriter 1.2 tried to be some kind of graphical word processor.

After working on it for many months I consider it more than a try. If you work on such an application alone and not as a large team you cannot provide all the features of LibreOffice etc.

> For word processing, dunno, it's too complicated. Most people would suggest
> using a modern OS with a modern suite of tools (e.g. LibreOffice, Abiword,
> Ted, Lyx, Texmacs).

If you want to do word processing using the DOS operating system I think FlWriter is an application that can be used for that. Laaca wrote below:"probably best is FlWriter".

FlWriter is not intended and I think not very useful for developing programs though.

I came accross an application similar to DEV-CPP which I could port to DOS: FlDEV However, this will be quite a lot of work. Also, DJGPP requires long file name support as far as I am aware. After you load DOSLFN compiling seems to take a much, much longer time compared to a Windows XP DOS box.

Georg

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.05.2013, 17:40

@ georgpotthast

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> Hi Rugxulo,
>
> let me comment on your severe condemnation of FlWriter:

Those remarks weren't meant to be insulting.

> > Georg's FLWriter 1.2 tried to be some kind of graphical word processor.
> > Unfortunately, for me at least, it seemed to crash a lot (esp. open file
> > dialog).
>
> I only release software that does not crash here. I also have not heard
> from users of FlWriter that it does crash.

I know all this. That much was implied. That's why it's so confusing as to why it's crashing for me. Must be some obscure bug or maybe quirk in my setup (though I'm honestly not doing anything weird).

> However, I believe that you
> observe the crashes you mention, but maybe you could test it a bit further
> and report: "it works fine as long as I do not load the xyz driver." ;-)

You mean DOS system drivers? Dunno. Again, I'm not really doing anything out of the ordinary, but I'll try again and see what I can find. (Unfortunately, my skills with GDB are limited.)

BTW, native DOS with "cwsdpmi -p -s- -x" still didn't work (crash). DOSEMU only loads to blank screen. DOSBox seems to work fine, ironically.

> > Georg's FLWriter 1.2 tried to be some kind of graphical word processor.
>
> After working on it for many months I consider it more than a try. If you
> work on such an application alone and not as a large team you cannot
> provide all the features of LibreOffice etc.

I understand all of that, but stability issues prevent me from using it. I'm not sure if I really believe it's all a problem exclusively on my end. Maybe it's a libc bug, who knows.

> Also, DJGPP requires long file name support as far as I am aware.

You can use DJGPP proper entirely within SFNs, if you unzip it with LFNs disabled. It's all the blasted third party sources that make so many bad assumptions about the file system, etc. that make things harder.

> After you load DOSLFN compiling seems to take
> a much, much longer time compared to a Windows XP DOS box.

Yes, DOSLFN makes things 2x slower, at least. But for various reasons FreeDOS won't (and can't) have LFN support in the kernel.

DOSEMU supports LFNs out of the box. The other alternative is cross-compiling (e.g. from Linux host). As I don't have any XP machines anymore (they stopped working, sadly), I can't rely on that (though IIRC it did work "mostly" well there for DJGPP stuff).

georgpotthast Germany, 15.05.2013, 18:37 @ Rugxulo	Which text editor do you use for dos programming? Post reply
	I did not think that you wanted to insult but if you write - simply put - FlWriter was a nice try but it crashes all the time I have to object. Since the source code is stripped from FlWriter I am afraid GDB will not give you much information. Maybe you start FreeDOS just with HIMEM, without EMM386 or alternative, and then start FlWriter to let it load cwsdpmi. Georg

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.05.2013, 21:31

@ georgpotthast

Flwriter 1.2 works great

Post reply

> I did not think that you wanted to insult but if you write - simply put -
> FlWriter was a nice try but it crashes all the time I have to object.

I couldn't even read readme.htm or open dosopen.htm (without loading from cmdline)! :-)

> Since the source code is stripped from FlWriter I am afraid GDB will not
> give you much information.

I should just rebuild it, but I hate polluting my DJGPP tree with tons of libs and headers. Though it needs minor updates (again) anyways, and I do have .ZIP backups to reinstall if needed. It just feels annoyingly messy, but that's life I guess.

Anyways, for now it's not necessary (see below), but yeah, any further "condemnations" by me should probably have patches ready for submission. :-)

> Maybe you start FreeDOS just with HIMEM, without
> EMM386 or alternative, and then start FlWriter to let it load cwsdpmi.

I don't use EMM386 by default, so it's not that.

I fiddled with CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT and rebooted a lot but to no superior effect. No surprise, my setup is fairly clean (though handrolled, not based upon stock FD 1.1).

I think I found the problem (through random elimination): %LANG%

Solution: "set LANG=" before running. I guess this is an artifact of Linux, since they are much more i18n friendly than we are (mostly).

I don't even need %LANG% set. IIRC, I only set it for some trivial reason: testing RUNTIME or maybe to shut up FD TEE, can't remember.

georgpotthast Germany, 15.05.2013, 21:57 @ Rugxulo	Flwriter 1.2 works great Post reply
	Thank you for your test, Rugxulo! Actually you probably found a bug in FlWriter. The original Linux code used gettext() for multi-language support. Since I never set %LANG% I did not observe any problems if no specific language file is available for gettext(). I will look into that for the next release of FlWriter. Georg

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.05.2013, 21:50

@ georgpotthast

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> FlWriter is not intended and I think not very useful for developing
> programs though.
>
> I came accross an application similar to DEV-CPP which I could port to DOS:
> FlDEV However,
> this will be quite a lot of work.

What functionality do you hope to implement?

We can already run make and jump to compiler errors (JED, TDE, GNU Emacs, VILE) and jump to function declarations (etags or ctags, or externally via cscope or global). Syntax highlighting and macros (if not full scripting) is well supported in most common editors too. Even old RHIDE (for COFF debugging only, e.g. GCC before 4.5.x) is debug friendly (or maybe we're now stuck with gdb --tui for DWARF ??).

georgpotthast

Germany,
15.05.2013, 22:30

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

I just find the code easier to read in VisualC, Dev-CPP or Code::Blocks than in DOS text based editors. This due to the fonts used instead of 8bit fonts.

On the other hand I am not familiar with all the editors you mentioned and will take a look at them before starting to port FlDev. Currently I work on a different project though.

Georg

> > FlWriter is not intended and I think not very useful for developing
> > programs though.
> >
> > I came accross an application similar to DEV-CPP which I could port to
> DOS:
> > FlDEV However,
> > this will be quite a lot of work.
>
> What functionality do you hope to implement?
>
> We can already run make and jump to compiler errors (JED, TDE, GNU Emacs,
> VILE) and jump to function declarations (etags or ctags, or externally via
> cscope or global). Syntax highlighting and macros (if not full scripting)
> is well supported in most common editors too. Even old RHIDE (for COFF
> debugging only, e.g. GCC before 4.5.x) is debug friendly (or maybe we're
> now stuck with gdb --tui for DWARF ??).

Rugxulo

Usono,
15.05.2013, 22:51

@ georgpotthast

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> I just find the code easier to read in VisualC, Dev-CPP or Code::Blocks
> than in DOS text based editors. This due to the fonts used instead of 8bit
> fonts.

Did you see my freedos-user message about Terminus? (DOS 8x16, normal)

"Terminus Font is a clean, fixed width bitmap font, designed for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers."

> On the other hand I am not familiar with all the editors you mentioned and
> will take a look at them before starting to port FlDev. Currently I work on
> a different project though.

I need to finally package up my build of JED for FreeDOS. It's got fairly good emulation of GNU Emacs and some of its more useful features but with 99% less bloat! ;-) Tags, syntax highlight, compile and jump-to-error, folds, multiple windows, good mouse support, etc. (My build script isn't that complex, so you could probably just build it yourself.)

georgpotthast

Germany,
16.05.2013, 19:05

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

Yes, the font looks good. When you got JED for download I will test it.

Georg

> > I just find the code easier to read in VisualC, Dev-CPP or Code::Blocks
> > than in DOS text based editors. This due to the fonts used instead of
> 8bit
> > fonts.
>
> Did you see my freedos-user message about
> Terminus?
> (DOS
> 8x16, normal)
>
> "Terminus Font is a clean, fixed width bitmap font, designed for long (8
> and more hours per day) work with computers."
>
> > On the other hand I am not familiar with all the editors you mentioned
> and
> > will take a look at them before starting to port FlDev. Currently I work
> on
> > a different project though.
>
> I need to finally package up my build of
> JED for FreeDOS. It's got fairly
> good emulation of GNU Emacs and some of its more useful features but with
> 99% less bloat! ;-) Tags, syntax highlight, compile and jump-to-error,
> folds, multiple windows, good mouse support, etc. (My
> build
> script isn't that complex, so you could probably just build it
> yourself.)

DOS386

23.05.2013, 11:26

@ Damien

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

AFAIK not exactly.

> Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

INFOPAD + FASM IDE

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

bocke

01.06.2013, 12:39

@ Damien

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> As this kind of display can be appropriate with old 14" CRT, on today's
> screen (19" or more), it would be better to display more text...
> Is there a solution for this ? Some kind of text editor that would display
> in graphic mode (for example 1024*768), with several fonts and size ?
>

There is no standard API for that kind of thing in DOS. You can switch VGA text modes, but there is no a high-res framebuffer like in Linux. But as Rugxulo noted there are some editors using graphical VGA+ modes. But don't expect N++ features.

> In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

I tend to use Vim on every platform. In native DOS it works fine, but it seems too slow in emulators (ie DOSEmu). Especially more recent 7.x versions. So an older version or Elvis (another vi clone) usually do the thing.

But of course, there are a bunch of free (and/or libre) editors you can choose from.

As Vim is a bit bloaty on DOS, I would recommend an older version for non-fans (5.5+ has syntax highlighting, 6.3 might be better choice).

Other editors I find usefull are for example: fed, fte, jed, tde... Aurora is a nice "formerly shareware" editor. OpenWatcom includes a pretty nice vi-like editor.

For editors without syntax-highlighting.. There are bunch of them. I tend to use only the lightest like PC-Mag ted variants (actually ted2 derivatives as it has support for Unix line endings) or an old vi clone called Calvin. Vim also has a pure 16-bit version. It's nice, but without fancy features of 32-bit version. An older version might have more options.

Rugxulo

Usono,
11.08.2013, 04:48

@ bocke

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

(Sorry for bumping this old thread.)

> > In other words, is there some kind of "notepad++" for Dos ?

There are a million different text editors to choose from, even for "old" DOS. It just depends on what you need or expect it to do.

> I tend to use Vim on every platform. In native DOS it works fine, but it
> seems too slow in emulators (ie DOSEmu). Especially more recent 7.x
> versions. So an older version or Elvis (another vi clone) usually do the
> thing.

Though there are better editors with more features, I tend to prefer TDE or VILE. In particular, I'm so used to using TDE from years. VILE is nice too, but usually I only prefer it in environments where TDE doesn't work as well (e.g. keyboard input bugs/limitations: Linux X11 native and VirtualBox + FreeDOS).

Vi and Emacs clones are everywhere, and there are many. However, some are better supported than others. Elvis never had a 32-bit build for DOS (due to lack of time and interest from author). 2.2 was horribly crippled memory-wise, and 1.8 was better but wimpier in features. (Well, most people don't "only" want a pure vi clone without extensions.) At last check, you could actually run the Win32 version of Elvis 2.2 under HX (with only minor screen redrawing issues), which is better, but I still prefer (native DJGPP) VILE.

GNU Emacs (viper) can emulate vi, but it's a lot more heavyweight. IIRC, it was like 180 MB installed (full, with docs and .el and .elc files). I think I slimmed it down (23.1?) to about 12 MB (without viper?), but I don't recall having many extras.

> As Vim is a bit bloaty on DOS, I would recommend an older version for
> non-fans (5.5+ has syntax highlighting, 6.3 might be better choice).

It depends if you want omnicomplete (code completion, or whatever), spellchecking, folds, syntax highlighting, etc. It's not that bloaty, but it is much bigger than just a simple vi clone.

> Other editors I find usefull are for example: fed, fte, jed, tde... Aurora
> is a nice "formerly shareware" editor. OpenWatcom includes a pretty nice
> vi-like editor.

JED is mostly an Emacs clone, though there is a partial emulation for vi in some website online. Though Slang hasn't really caught on with most people (though probably no worse than VIMscript).

FTE and TDE actually share some code (also from older DTE).

OpenWatcom's vi is nice for its syntax highlighting, menus, and it's 8-bit clean.

> For editors without syntax-highlighting.. There are bunch of them. I tend
> to use only the lightest like PC-Mag ted variants (actually ted2
> derivatives as it has support for Unix line endings) or an old vi clone
> called Calvin. Vim also has a pure 16-bit version. It's nice, but without
> fancy features of 32-bit version. An older version might have more options.

Calvin doesn't support regex, but Stevie and Xvi do.

Vim 7.1 was last to support 16-bit DOS, and it was a bare-bones build, so it lacked most features.

Here's the real news (but bad news, no surprise):

"[2013-08-10] Finally, after more than a thousand patches, there is a new version of Vim. This is mostly a bug-fix release. Also, many runtime files have been improved, syntax highlighting and indenting works better."

"32 bit DOS executable vim##d32.zip vim73_46d32.zip
Not available for 7.4 and later."

:no:

DOS386

11.08.2013, 13:47

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> (Sorry for bumping this old thread.)
> Here's the real news (but bad news, no surprise)

INFOPAD improved :-)

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Brian_extended

21.10.2013, 20:19

@ DOS386

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

New Member to the forum, "old" DOS user...

I prefer WordStar version 6, non-document mode. WordStar is sensitive to file extensions for setting tab stops, and inserting spaces rather than an Ascii Tab character. Column editing mode, two windows, cut and paste between them- and use something since 1980 -CP/m days-, you just get "fast" with it.

Older WordStar 4 uses very little memory, and I've called it from inside my DOS programs using the "EXEC" function call for editing data, exiting, and having my code read in the changes.

Utility programs that come with WS6 allow it to be set up for larger screens, more columns and more rows. Save the changed "exe" off to disk and use when you want to.

"Vetusware" has a full version of WordStar 6 available for download, it has long been abandoned.

Rugxulo

Usono,
28.10.2013, 17:57

@ Brian_extended

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> I prefer WordStar version 6, non-document mode. WordStar is sensitive to
> file extensions for setting tab stops, and inserting spaces rather than an
> Ascii Tab character. Column editing mode, two windows, cut and paste
> between them- and use something since 1980 -CP/m days-, you just get "fast"
> with it.

There is ws-mode.el in GNU Emacs, but I don't know how well it works. Of course, you're entitled to use whatever text editor you want. There are many, including those that support column editing, multiple windows, cut and paste, etc.

> Older WordStar 4 uses very little memory, and I've called it from inside my
> DOS programs using the "EXEC" function call for editing data, exiting, and
> having my code read in the changes.

Well, yes, if you're low on RAM, maybe full Emacs isn't for you. I suggest "COPY CON" instead. ;-)

> Utility programs that come with WS6 allow it to be set up for larger
> screens, more columns and more rows. Save the changed "exe" off to disk and
> use when you want to.

Not sure how well big resolutions are supported by most text editors. I currently use 80x43 for this particular desktop. Even that has to sometimes be directly invoked to work correctly (e.g. FED).

> "Vetusware" has a full version of WordStar 6 available for download, it has
> long been abandoned.

Well ... that's probably not legal in most countries (including U.S.). Heck, it might even be illegal to link to such sites in some places. Sad but true, even if long discontinued, modern copyright forbids public use.

But, as mentioned, there are so many alternatives that it almost doesn't matter. Most hackers seem to prefer VIM (easily 2:1 vs. Emacs). I personally prefer TDE, even with its weaknesses, or maybe VILE or JED or MINED. But it really depends on what you're trying to do, what cpu/OS, and what features you can't live without.

Brian_extended

28.10.2013, 22:56
(edited by Brian_extended, 28.10.2013, 23:12)

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> > I prefer WordStar version 6, non-document mode. WordStar is sensitive to
> > file extensions for setting tab stops, and inserting spaces rather than
> an
> > Ascii Tab character. Column editing mode, two windows, cut and paste
> > between them- and use something since 1980 -CP/m days-, you just get
> "fast"
> > with it.
>
> There is ws-mode.el in GNU Emacs, but I don't know how well it works. Of
> course, you're entitled to use whatever text editor you want. There are
> many, including those
> that support column editing, multiple windows, cut and paste, etc.
>
> > Older WordStar 4 uses very little memory, and I've called it from inside
> my
> > DOS programs using the "EXEC" function call for editing data, exiting,
> and
> > having my code read in the changes.
>
> Well, yes, if you're low on RAM, maybe full Emacs isn't for you. I suggest
> "COPY CON" instead. ;-)
>
> > Utility programs that come with WS6 allow it to be set up for larger
> > screens, more columns and more rows. Save the changed "exe" off to disk
> and
> > use when you want to.
>
> Not sure how well big resolutions are supported by most text editors. I
> currently use 80x43 for this particular desktop. Even that has to sometimes
> be directly invoked to work correctly (e.g. FED).
>
> > "Vetusware" has a full version of WordStar 6 available for download, it
> has
> > long been abandoned.
>
> Well ... that's probably not legal in most countries (including U.S.).
> Heck, it might even be illegal to link to such sites in some places. Sad
> but true, even if long discontinued, modern copyright forbids public use.
>
> But, as mentioned, there are so many alternatives that it almost doesn't
> matter. Most hackers seem to prefer VIM (easily 2:1 vs. Emacs). I
> personally prefer TDE, even with its weaknesses, or maybe VILE or JED or
> MINED. But it really depends on what you're trying to do, what cpu/OS, and
> what features you can't live without.

WordStar is no longer available commercially, WordStar for Windows V2- bought that for $5 on a CD almost 20 years ago. If a copyright owner comes forward, Vetusware will remove it from download. The owner can ask for a Royalty, or a portion of the profits made. At least that is what I am reading. Fortunately, I've got at least a dozen licenses collected. The law is "ever-evolving", but I don't see anyone behind bars for downloading 25 year-old software from a company that ceased supporting the product 20 years ago.

WS4 can run in ~75K of memory, so it was well-suited for "exec" calls from within programs running under DOS. I wrote a graphics package that called WS4 to edit data point, and read the edited data back in once you exited WordStar. I've used "Copy Con filename.ext" and PIP before that. The exec call to WS4 was much nicer.

I even have it for CP/m-80 and CP/m-86.

Arjay

02.11.2013, 16:10

@ Rugxulo

Which text editor do you use for dos programming?

Post reply

> > Older WordStar 4 uses very little memory, and I've called it from inside
> my
> > DOS programs using the "EXEC" function call for editing data, exiting,
> and
> > having my code read in the changes.
>
> Well, yes, if you're low on RAM, maybe full Emacs isn't for you. I suggest
> "COPY CON" instead. ;-)
heh. Well I think it's important to remember that wordstar (1978) predates the XT (1981 as you know). Brian explained he was using wordstar before PC's :-) Remember when the XT came out it only came with 128k! I remember even in the mid to late 80's a lot of the first CP/m, early PC's I used still only having 512k. I used to own an XT with 256k. So when Wordstar came out for PC's in 1982 what Brian's talking about was an absolutely necessary requirement. Such techniques are often as relevant now for things like the 86duino, when I read that it only 256k I thought well ok that's more than sufficient for a lot of stuff I'd want to do myself. I love embedded limitations as it forces people to think more.

Having swapped a few emails with Brian, I can tell he has an amazing amount of knowledge from CP/m through to DOS which due to the evolution of PC's is just as relevant now. So I'm really glad he's joined the forum.