Jedit, Jext & J: Java-based Editors Compared

An anonymous reader writes "There are times when I want a lean, mean editor and times when I enjoy a good, bloated editor packed with wizards. We compare the programming editors Jext and J to Jedit and offer a revised opinion of the best Java for Linux."

Comments

Why I gave up Emacs...

[dmorin]

XML. I was never happy with the XML modes I could find for Emacs. And, as a Java geek, I'm doing alot with XML these days. So I decided to give JEdit a try when I heard that it had good plugin extendability. It's XML support is quite nice.

But! That's the only reason I use it. When I need to write Java code I still go with Emacs and the JDEE package from Paul Kinnucan which gives me everythign IDE-like I could ever want.

Windows has better editors/IDEs

[kruetz]

Unfortunately, I dislike all three of the above editors in favour of JCreator - a Win32 IDE for Java. I KNOW this article is about editors for Linux, but hear me out on this one.

JCreator is small, fast and has all I want in an IDE. It is written in C++ and behaves very much like VisualStudio, which is great if you're a windows programmer. Personally, I run dual boot CRUX 1.0/WinXP and if I'm gonna write a good amount of Java code, I choose XP and JCreator, because JCreator feels so much faster than any Java-written IDE/Editor. JCreator is freeware (there is a Pro version for as little as US$35) and I'd love to see a Linux version - I have emailed them about it and it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Damn.

But anyway, there is a big difference between JCreator and Java editors for Linux. I'd like to see a JCreator-like project at SourceForge or something, because I'd definitely use it. (I'm not gonna contribute myself - I'm already working 60+ hrs a week). Does anyone else feel the same way?

So what's wrong with text?

[0x0d0a]

Okay, I had to look this one up. It seems that EUML is pretty much what it sounds like -- some companies trying to build a really high level language -- fine, that I'll understand -- using UML, which comes off as a bad idea. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of a "solution without a problem" being aimed at corporate purchasers who think "UML == good, so EUML == good".

First, I'm not a tremendous fan of UML. While the next generation of languages may hit within a decade, I'm not holding my breath, and I rather doubt that they'll be based on UML.

Second of all, I don't see why you dislike text so much. You can have the benefits of EUML without going to some mouse-based development environment. A text-based system would work fine as well.

Third, text is well understood by now. Text is stored in a standard format, and there are extremely powerful tools available to process it. Furthermore, it survives interchange fairly well, deals well with different output devices, and can be printed easily. There are a number of excellent, extensible text processing systems like emacs.