Slashdot Mirror


JOE Hits 3.0

orasio writes " Joe's Own Editor , a unix editor very much like the old Turbo-Pascal 4 editor, or WordStar, used and enjoyed by us console freaks who still miss the old DOS days, and cannot finish understanding vi's modes, has been revamped, adding syntax highlighting and internationalization support after many years without new features. The Sourceforge project is open for contributors since a year ago, but this is the first major feature improvement, that brings new life to JOE as a neat console-based programmer's editor." Joe is one undervalued program -- less arcane than vi, less cumbersome than emacs.

9 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Joe vs. vi vs. GUI based editors by Bapu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone should use Joe because CTRL-k-d is so much easier and more intuitive than ESC :wq!

    Joe was a nice alternative for DOS refugees when vi was the only other choice, but X-windows based editors make everything nicer...try middle click cut-and-paste for starters.

    Unless we are all sitting at green Wyse 50 terminals, why are we still so married to command line editors? I am guilty of it too. vi is my God.

  2. My Sweet Joe Memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When I started at the university ten years ago, I was confronted with editors like vi, pico and emacs. Emacs was usually the last choice since the old Sun IPX:es had a hard time coping with ONE operating system. My first confrontation with vi gave me panic and I killed it, only to receive a death notice by mail shortly after. (It took 2 years until I dared starting it again). Joe was one of the few programs I managed to save in (because I used pine, I guess), so I stuck with that.

    Later I had an affair with Jed and found its syntax hiliting to be a bless. And, I could figure out how to get the background black!

    Now, I've grown up and am much to comfortable to develop in anything less than a good IDE.

    /Pung

  3. Re:Anyone have a replica of MS-DOS EDITOR? by Scott+Robinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you tried using Jed?

    For the record, I'm was leaving Joe *right now* for Jed.

    With version three, I think I'll take another look at my favourite editor.

  4. Re:VI is everywhere. by CoolGopher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know what you mean. When I was dropped into doing system development on a Solaris based product I initially set out with the intention of finally learning emacs.

    Well, long story short, I couldn't the sucker to compile/run/whatever (I've forgotten the details by now), so I decided not to waste any more time and instead improve my vi skills.

    Best decision ever. Easily.
    Now I have an extremely powerful, usable, lightweight editor that is available on every *nix under the Sun (ha ha).

    Not to mention that starting up emacs on my old 386 would not be a pretty sight, considering that just doing "vi /etc/fstab" takes ~8secs before I can start editing...

    This is not to say that Joe is bad/useless. I wouldn't say that, especially since I haven't used it. However, for me, and many others, it's not the most practical choice :)

  5. Re:VI is everywhere. by lintux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, when you know how to use vim, you certainly don't automatically know how to use vi. Just try to edit a file on BSD using the default version of vi.

    - Backspace key won't work correctly when you want to delete text which was there already before you entered insert mode.
    - Forget about the delete key, you'll have to quit insert mode and use x. (And for some reason, when you leave insert mode, the cursor magically moves one position to the left)
    - When you accidentally use your arrow keys at an unexpected moment, your file gets messed up and/or you sometimes automatically leave insert mode.

    And well, I can imagine that it'll be even worse on older machines.

  6. Re:Great news, but.. by Alan+Cox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I for one use joe. It does what I need and it does it fast. More to the point I suspect it uses the same keystrokes I learned back in prehistory (before DOS!) from VDE and Wordstar on CP/M.

    Joe 3 will be most welcome here.

  7. JOE and I go way back... by Croaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Joe (the Joe in JOE) was my college roomate. He'd stumble in in the middle of the night to rave about this or that optimization, and how he'd figured out the perfect way to do such-and-such.

    Technically, the one thing Joe kicked most other editors asses at (except perhaps vi) was its ability to provide a user-friendly text editor environment over slow connections. Joe paid a lot of attention to optimizing the screen redraws to ensure that the minimum number of characters were sent over the pipe. Back in the days of 1200 baud modems and painfully slow cross-country telnet sessions, this made a big difference.

    It's funny how JOE (the editor) keeps turning up... I hacked my TiVo recently following all of those instructions on the Internet, and was amused to see that the editor of choice for TiVo hackers is... Joe!

    Later today I'll be installing Gentoo on what is going to be my home theater box. The first program I'll emerge? Joe. Simple as that.

  8. Thoughts on editors, especially vi, Joe, and ed by ExpressWay · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's fun to read a thread on character editors once again. These discussions pop up only occasionally these days. It's so rare to find a subject where everyone is right, everyone is wrong, and no one is without an opinion, yet everyone recognizes that the issue is of no consequence, so we avoid personal attacks. (At least with my threshold.)

    Here are my qualifications: I've been using UNIX for 32 years, starting with ed, the original line editor. No screen editors then because we didn't have screens. They didn't show up until around 1975. Soon after Bell Labs employees who went to Berkeley started bringing vi back with them.

    Anyway, now for my opinions:

    1. One must distinguish between the learnability of an editor and its usability. (True of any user interface, in fact.) For UNIX character-oriented screen editors, there is a huge difference between the two. For other user interfaces the difference is not so great, but it is in this case. Go to a beginner learning vi and you will find that the modes are confusing. Go to an experienced vi user, and you will find that he or she is barely aware of the modes.

    2. I edit UNIX files a lot, but in two very different ways: The first is occasional use, right at the console, when I'm unfamiliar with the system or just setting it up. In this case the last thing I want to do is install an editor. I would be happy to use ed; I just want something quick to, for example, set up an fstab file. The second kind of use is for everyday editing, and for that I'm willing to take the time to install what I want. Actually, though, because I have so many different machines, I don't bother. As soon as the system is able to, I go to my primary machine and access the new machine via SSH or Xterm.

    I used to think, as many others here do, that vi was the essential editor to learn because it is always there. Imagine my surprise when I installed gentoo the other day and found no vi! Something I'd never heard of, nano, was there instead. OK, fine, Control-o to write the file. At least it was listed at the bottom of the screen. Soon I "emerged" vi (vim, really), and the Gentoo system was back in the fold.

    For everyday use, I never use a character editor anyway. I did once, but stopped around 10 or 12 years ago. (Guys, I'm way older than most of you, but even I know that it's 2004!) So for me (given my description of the roles editors play, above) joe has no use whatsoever. In fact, it solves a problem that I don't actually have.

    Nonetheless, I wish the new joe project all the best. WordStar (which I used a bit in the mid-1980s) was a great piece of work, and it's nice to see it live on.

  9. VI modes FUD by oren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    VI doesn't have modes, damn it! VI has commands, period. It so happens that some commands have arguments, one of the possible arguments is text to be inserted into the file. There is no "insert mode" and "command mode". If you learn VI keeping this fact firmly in mind, you'll have no problems. If you try to keep track of "insert mode" vs. "command mode" you'll get lost faster than you can say "dt,f)P".

    People get so hung up about VI's "modes" they miss its true brilliance - its orthogonal command structure: a VI command is usually a combination of (1) character(s) indicating which action to take followed by (2) character(s) indicating what area of the file is affected. For example, if 'w' moves the cursor one word, and '$' moves it to the end of the line, then you can combine them with the 'd' (delete) action to obtain 'dw' - delete word and 'd$' - delete to the end of the line.

    When you insert text, you type something like "aText", reading "add-to-right-of-cursor" "Text" "done". "Text" is just an argument to the "add" command (there are various other commands that also insert text into the file). There is no "insert mode", there's just "writing the argument to an insertion command".

    This is much more intuitive than remembering that control-W or alt-E deletes a word and control-T or alt-Q deletes to the end of the line. It is also much, much more powerful, since at the price of N+M commands you get all N*M combinations. No other editor comes even close. I'll bet most non-VI users don't know whether their editor even has a command to delete to the end of the line, and even less what the command is if there is one. No to mention useful things like "cut everything between this parenthesis" ("d%"), or "copy the next function argument" ("yt,").

    *That* is what VI is all about. It is also why so many editors can be made to emulate each other's keystrokes, but they can't emulate VI.

    I have had friends learning VI, and once this simple notion "clicked" they became proficient very quickly. Watching people learn VI is rather fun... first, make sure they understand the above. Then, and only then, let them work through the tutorial, and in general use VI for all their editing work.

    For the first few days, they'll tend to throw a chair at you if you ask them how well things are going. Don't worry, that's a normal response. Most people drop off at this stage, but since your vic... - sorry, friend - knows why he's going through this, he'll pull through.

    Within a week you'll see the "click" happening. It is easy to verify; at this point, be prepared to duck another chair if you dare suggest to the new VI convert that he give it up for the "intuitive" editor he's been using before. The real fun part is having plenty of witnesses to both the "before" and "after" reactions.

    Now, if someone decides, for some mysterious reason, the universe needs yet another editor, at least do it *right*! The "perfect" editor would use the VI way of constructing commands, but all commands would start with control-X or alt-X, so that normal ASCII characters would be just inserted. My biggest disappointment with Emacs is that it doesn't work this way. I'm certain it is possible to write an Emacs mode that _does_ work this way, but nobody did (except, of course, VIPER - which makes Emacs emulate VI).

    I have been using VI ever since its first version came out for UNIX version 7, and AFAIK, in all this time, *nobody* has *ever* came up with another editor that uses VI-like combined operator/operand commands. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. I suspect a lot of it is due to people getting so hung up about VI having "modes" and therefore being so "bad" there's nothing good to learn from it. Well, their loss!

    Well, I (and many others) will hang on to our out-"moded" editor. VI addiction is so strong that I have personally ported VI to VMS to satisfy it. Today we have VIM running on every imaginable platform, so getting our fix is easier than ever.