Slashdot Mirror


Acme for Windows

jacoplane writes "You may remember Rob Pike from his Slashdot interview. Since his interview, his two-dimensional text editors have experienced many improvements and ports including license improvements. A port to Inferno has been around for awhile. Recently a standalone version has been made for Windows based on the Inferno port. Linux users are in luck as the native port is now legally distributable."

176 comments

  1. disambiguation by Peganthyrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    his two-dimensional text editor

    As always, the central question of 'what's this story about?' is not a link. Sigh.

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
    1. Re:disambiguation by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      I prefer these links too. I want the link to be on the verb "PC World writes that ..."; or an adjective (or adjective type phrase) "open source developer ....".

      The summary shouldn't read like a begining of a news story - the links are functional, just out of place. Look at older stories compared to today.

    2. Re:disambiguation by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      How is this different than the Window+Tile command found in MDI MS Windows programs?

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:disambiguation by Briareos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it just me, or does this look quite a bit like Nikolaus Wirth's Oberon system, which also mainly consisted of a mouse-driven text editor?

      (It's concept and usability also sucked galaxy clusters through nanotubes when I had to use it for doing exercises during my computer science studies, but that's a different story - although I can't believe that ACME would be much better...)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    4. Re:disambiguation by Vengeance · · Score: 1

      From Acme: A User Interface for Programmers Acme is a new program, a combined window system, editor, and shell, that applies some of the ideas distilled by Oberon. Where Oberon uses objects and modules within a programming language (also called Oberon), Acme uses files and commands within an existing operating system (Plan 9). Unlike Oberon, Acme does not yet have support for graphical output, just text. At least for now, the work on Acme has concentrated on producing the smoothest user interface possible for a programmer at work.

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    5. Re:disambiguation by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      It's not remotely similar. See http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme.html for details.

  2. Acme sucks! by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...just ask Wile E. Coyote!

    1. Re:Acme sucks! by 0racle · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't, just as the Roadrunner.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Acme sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...just ask Wile E. Coyote!

      But yet he continues to buy from them. Just like a Microsoft user.

      Not that there is anything wrong with that...

    3. Re:Acme sucks! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      When is Groklaw going to cover Coyote v. Acme?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  3. Rob Pikes 1994 paper by ems2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Worthwhile read: "Acme: A User Interface for Programmers" (PDF). Its a bit outdated but explains acme beautifully.

  4. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Acme is a text editor and shell from the Plan 9 operating system, designed and implemented by Rob Pike. It can use the sam command language. The design of the interface was influenced by Oberon. It is different from other editing environments in that it acts as a 9P server. A distinctive element of the interface is mouse chording.
    ...I'm sorry, but I read your wikipedia link and I still have no idea what this program is supposed to be :O

    I read this and I imagine Data saying "Captain. I have an idea. If we reverse the tachyon coefficient to the digital anomoly drives, we can invert the neutrino wave probe." And Patrick Stewart says, "Do it."
    1. Re:Wait, what? by ems2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Wikipedia article is crap. Rob Pikes 1994 paper: Acme: A User Interface for Programmers explains what acme is. Also check out the introduction documentary when you first start acme.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by bipolarpinguino · · Score: 1

      No, Patrick Stewart says, "Make it so."

    3. Re:Wait, what? by bonkeroo+buzzeye · · Score: 5, Informative

      Holy synchronicity Batman.

      I just installed the Inferno virtual machine on my Windows box last night because I didn't want to gunk up my Linux and BSD boxes. Plan9 is a sort of Unix the Next Generation, to continue the Star Trek motif. Sam - dunno, haven't got that deeply into it yet, but I gather it's 'sed, the Next Generation' - an editing command set. Oberon (again with the odd synchronicity, as I installed Oberon on my 486 before it died back when) is basically an academic operating system in which everything on the screen was both a display of information and a command interface. 9P seems to be a sort of protocol for communication that relies on the "everything's a file" thing being carried to its ultimate conclusion. Plan9 is kind of conceived as a distributed system in which there's no real distinction between 'local' and 'remote' because *everything* can be mounted and accessed from wherever. Mouse chording is simply a really annoying mechanism whereby you might hold a mouse button while pressing a key. A middle-click, hold, keystroke, and release, is distinct from a middle-click.

      As far as the editor itself, Pike compares to Emacs in the sense that it's a shell, file manager, window manager and editor (and more) all rolled into one. It's also kind of like running vim with 'Sexplore', only - again - much more thoroughgoing. Except he makes the distinction that Emacs is bound to the 'teletype' concept and era. Plan9 is heavily GUI-oriented and mouse based. However, it's GUI in the sense of windowed text and clickability, not in the sense of pretty icons. It's more like every text object is a sort of icon. But there's no 'pictographic' icon that doesn't *say* anything.

      So, yeah - distributed networked next-generation GUI mouse Unix. Sort of. And the editor is an all-in-one interface.

      Unfortunately, Plan9 is actually nothing new. It's like Unix guys seeing a mouse and saying 'Oooh, look what Zog do' and going overboard, while retaining a kind of X11R4 look'n'feel. And, being a vim user and keyboard-centric and whatnot, myself, I find it interesting in a sort of theoretical sense, but not anything genuinely usable or even the right direction to go.

      *My* question is, what does this Windows editor port do that I didn't do last night by just installing Inferno? It was a simple thing to do and gives me rio, acme, and so on and so forth. Also, Plan9 from User Space has been available to Linux and BSD users for quite awhile, AFAIK.

      Sorry if this is a bit breathless and incoherent, but hopefully more detailed than the technobabble writeup. And, as I say, it's still pretty new to me. That's just my rough perception of things.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by trixtah · · Score: 1

      I love people who say $article on Wikipedia is crap. How hard is it to fix it, then, if you know so much more about the topic?

    5. Re:Wait, what? by sholden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very. The poster pointed to a better reference but copying that into wikipedia would be a copyright violation. And the article already contains a reference to that paper.

      Is it really that hard to understand that some people might not be able to write a better description than is already available and hence just point to that existing well written publically available document?

    6. Re:Wait, what? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps making the Wikipedia people richer isn't in the poster's game plan.

      Esp. when the source paper is a click away "rob pike acme" isn't such a hard web search is it ?

      Even MSN has decent results for it !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Wait, what? by shish · · Score: 2, Funny
      the "everything's a file" thing being carried to its ultimate conclusion.

      "cat ~/comment.txt > /dev/gui/firefox/slashdot/comment_input_box"? Come to think of it, that *would* be awesome :O

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    8. Re:Wait, what? by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Thats the great part of acme. Its also a fileserver. Actually thats the great part of Plan 9 and Inferno operating systems.

    9. Re:Wait, what? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2

      Who is to say that they didn't already try, only to have their work trashed by an edit war?

      I consult wikipedia frequently, but I also check other sources and take some articles with a certain amount of salt, because some of the admins (just a few, I am sure) are total cunts.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    10. Re:Wait, what? by tsajeff · · Score: 1

      Nice description, Bonkaroo. I think that if this was the original submission, the rest of the discussion would be much more meaningful.

    11. Re:Wait, what? by ems2 · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding. Bonkaroo has no idea about what he is talking about. He is hardcore trolling.

    12. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows Patrick Stewart would say "Make it so." When has he ever said "Do it"?

    13. Re:Wait, what? by printman · · Score: 1

      > I read this and I imagine Data saying "Captain. I have an idea. If we reverse
      > the tachyon coefficient to the digital anomoly drives, we can invert the neutrino
      > wave probe." And Patrick Stewart says, "Do it."

      Actually, I believe the correct phrase is "make it so"... :)

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    14. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plan9 had great ideas and I hoped it would burst forth and revolutionalize the computing interface, back in 1998.

      As we now know, the project was more or less abandoned by Lucent (nee Bell Labs), was subsequently open-sourced, and then proceeded to embark upon a long course of stagnation. My hopes turned to disillusionment and despair.

      And yet, I may have given up too early. For behold! the only thing resembling UI development of any kind in the last two years has been the incredibly feeble efforts of Gnome, KDE, and Windows Vista to emulate the eyecandy of Mac OS X. The development of Inferno / Plan 9 over the last several years has seemed like the crawl of a sloth. But in truth, a sloth is like a leopard when compared to the glaciation of any other system.

      Plan 9 may seem dead and cut off from today's bleak world, but one day from its stump a flower will burst forth!

    15. Re:Wait, what? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Acme: A User Interface for Programmers explains what acme is.

      This looks awfully like EMACS.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    16. Re:Wait, what? by CptPicard · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I personally prefer "make it so" as it always sounded so much cooler and Shakespearean...

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    17. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How hard is it to fix it, then, if you know so much more about the topic?

      Who the hell obligates me to do Wikipedia's quality control? Lots of kids coming out of school don't know basic English composition ... this doesn't obligate me to teach them for free.

      And in fact, it's very hard. As soon as you shovel out the crap, someone will mix it right back in.

    18. Re:Wait, what? by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Even MSN has decent results for it !
      DON'T tell me you checked...

    19. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's really easy to fix it. So what? It isn't my responsibility to fix it. Why don't you fix it, instead of writing retarded comments suggesting someone else should?

      No one cares that you think Wikipedia is the greatest invention since the Internets.

    20. Re:Wait, what? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      >i>The Wikipedia article is crap.

      So fix it! ;-)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    21. Re:Wait, what? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Of course, I wouldn't want to lie on /. now would I !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    22. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the article is so bad there are a myriad of SIMPLE ways you can help. Here are some of the most obvious off the top of my head: firstly, you can just add something to the page discussions suggesting how someone else could proceed. Secondly, you could just write up a short very simple bit of text and let someone expand on it later. Finally, you can add a link to something that describes it better (such as the article you mentioned that you didn't want to plagiarize.) Any one of those three is 100 times more useful than just simply saying somewhere "that wiki article is crap" and ignoring the problem. The whole point of wiki and the "web 2.0" CONCEPT is user interactivity from small to large.

  5. wmii by John+Nowak · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you like acme, check out wmii, a window manager inspired by acme (amongst other things). It is incredibly innovative, and version 3 was just released.

    1. Re:wmii by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you like acme, check out wmii, a window manager inspired by acme (amongst other things). It is incredibly innovative, and version 3 was just released.

      One of the new features: You can move blocks of text by waving your mouse in air in specific manner, throwing the block of text a specific distance in the file depending on the strenth you swing the mouse.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:wmii by oZt · · Score: 0

      Unless you really enjoy cluttered workspaces, wmii is really worth a try. I've no deeper knowledge of it, as I'm only a user, but it's great (with only some minor flaws, which mainly exists because of broken X-apps)

    3. Re:wmii by uradu · · Score: 1

      Yes, full circle back to the tiled window days of Windows 1.0. That's a concept that has died an early death for good reasons, but I guess some people just can't leave dead horses alone. Tiled windows suck so much that they had to add the "zeroth column" hack to support floating windows to show just how much they suck. Ok, at times tiling can be very useful to maintain some visual order in a set of windows, but **optional** tiling has been implemented much more usefully (and optionally) via docking windows, a la Visual Studio .NET or many similar applications.

  6. Try It It's Great by nickgra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hi, Don't knock it untill you've tried it! I've been using (and modifying) acme within Inferno for a year now and I won't be going back! Hopefully This stand alone version will get the rest of the lab hooked on it too. http://www.caerwyn.com/acme/

  7. Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, seem to remember hearing about some really neat usability features in the Plan 9 interface awhile back. I'd be useful if some were recapped here... Also, is it just me, or do these Plan 9 GUIs combine eye-bleeding fonts with poor Gestalt, as my tech writing professor would say? I'm talking about figure-ground separation and all these things that separate a GUI from a big jumble of text.

    (Given that I'm having a hard time finding good links for Gestalt and figure-ground separation mean my tech-writing prof was ahead of his time, or a total crackpot? I happened to really agree w/ everything he taught.)

    --Joe
    1. Re:Hmmm.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I think it's just you.

      I've been using plan9 for 10 years and my eyes are not bleeding.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I suppose if you use a nicer font and space the menu labels further apart than is shown in screen shots like this one, it could be reasonable to work with. That, and ditch the ancient X11/Athena style scroll bars for something a little more contemporary, and we'll talk. :-)

      Since you've been using Plan9 for 10 years, do you have any counterargument-making screen shots of your own?

      --Joe
    3. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The rio (1) window manager gives me flashbacks to TWM, and gawdy color schemes inspired by 256-color displays.... More screen shots here. I'm not saying GNOME or KDE have the best look either. I actually was happy with OpenLook / OLVWM. If I have to go to a window manager look that's 10-15 years old, can I go to that one instead? :-) (Of course, anyone can make any window manager look bad.)

      --Joe
    4. Re:Hmmm.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I don't need a counter argument

      I use it all day every day, and it's the best UI I ever used, and I've used quite a few.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      It may be usable (highly usable in fact), but I have yet to see a non-ugly screenshot. Heck, my ideal UI lets me multiplex a bunch of xterm-esque Windows and lets me highlight/paste among them with ease. I understand that Plan 9's GUI takes that model rather further, which is actually intriguing to me.

      I'm not actually trying to cut down Plan 9's advances. I just was openly curious if anyone has managed to match the usability up to some asthetics?

      --Joe
    6. Re:Hmmm.... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Uglyness is just a side effect of usablity.

    7. Re:Hmmm.... by justine_avalanche · · Score: 1

      The color scheme is actually nice and based on the concept that light colors (that can be found in nature for example --not much Black or White, or really strong colors/contrasts there) are actually a better environment to look at for days. It's actually the theory followed by some artists (ever looked at Paul Klee paintings?).

      As for the spartiat look of the window manager (rio), it's a choice. No window border, no icons. It's VERY minimal, not to be confused with feature-lacking.

      I've been a plan9port user for few years now, and it's my favorite Unix environment. I use rio, sam, 9term, and acme on a regular basis. The environment has a learning curve, but somehow its strong philosophical design choice tend to stick. I really love it.

      As for the mouse vs. keyboard, I find the mouse a more natural and less 'tense' way to work on things.

      Conclusion: you can't just look at a Mondrian and say 'ah! my 3 year old son can do the same' ... get into it, try to get the idea behind it and you might end up discovering something great.

    8. Re:Hmmm.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Candy is for children.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Believe what you will, but I'm not asking for "bling bling," and I think most modern UIs are too flashy. I can't stand OS X for extended periods of time (except over an ssh connection), and when I have to use WinXP, I set it to "classic." *sigh*

      Is it too much to ask for the menus to be spaced a little further apart in a less jagged font, or even just confirmation that it can be done? Compare the original to a mockup I just made. Notice that the menus are in a more approachable font and spaced further apart. The scroll bars are also the more common type you find these days on the right, not the Athena/X11 style on the left.

      Just because an interface is spartan doesn't mean it must eschew all the useful minor improvements UIs have made over the years. I know when my eyes are tired and bleary from a long day of hacking, I'll have a better chance of hitting the menu I want in the proposed version.

      --Joe
    10. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Ok, explain how making a few minor tweaks, such as spacing menu items a little further apart and placing them in another font, as well as updating the scroll bars a little makes it less usable? In my opinion, it makes it less ugly. Compare: this Acme screenshot to a mockup I just made that I find significantly less ugly.

      How have I ruined usability?

      You remind me of the guy in Crazy People who came up with a slogan for Volvo: "Boxy, but good." What you're telling me goes a step further: "It can't be good unless it's boxy." The two are separable to some extent.

      --Joe
    11. Re:Hmmm.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      It's Open Source, feel free.

      All the fonts are configurable, even TrueType anti-aliased fonts.

      Plan9/inferno uses bitmap fonts so you have to prepare each size you wish to use.

      There are no menus, just key words.

      Feel free to add spaces between them them any time, or remove some or add more, it's just text.

      Menu bars on the left is a choice, you could re-write Acme to put them the other side if you thought it wise.

      Yours add visual clutter for me, I already know that up is up and down is down, I don't need icons for that. I also don't need pixels in the middle of the bar to get hold of. Would you also like a little hand to tell you when your mouse is over the bar.
      Perhaps you would like it to animate a pretend grab when you click the button.

      Some people seem to have the spare developer capacity to fiddle with crap like that.

      0 is the appropriate amount of nodding dogs required in my Forumla 1 car.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    12. Re:Hmmm.... by ratatask · · Score: 1

      I have to say YUCK to your mockup.
      The scrollbars looks alien.
      The original acme - http://cm.bell-labs.com/plan9/img/screenshot.gif does it right. (Ok, that gif isn't entirely representative beeing 8bit colors)

    13. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Had I had more time, I would have made something more integrated looking. You're right, they do look alien--that's because they are. I don't program GUIs so I was left with what I could quickly bolt together in GIMP. Otherwise, I would've coded up a sample GUI where all the widgets came from the same toolkit. I never liked the old Athena-style scrollbar on the left. I'm right handed, darnit.

      Reading through the Plan9 docs that DrSkwid posted a link to, Pike and co. that their input/UI model is strong enough that they don't need separate text editors, shell history mechanisms, a scroll history or even cursor addressability. Clearly, this is from outer space, and so my gut reactions for "what I want in a GUI" are probably horribly misinformed in a Plan 9 context. But, nobody here who claims to use Plan 9 has bothered to take the time to explain *why* I'm wrong. Rather, I just get "You don't get it" (and not until umpteen replies later, "RTFM").

      And I thought us Linux guys had deficient advocacy skills. :-)

      Of course, the response I've gotten is more along the lines "I don't care what you think. You're wrong about Plan 9. Plan 9 is clearly perfect. Why should I bother to advocate?" So why bother to respond to me at all then?

      --Joe
    14. Re:Hmmm.... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      You can change fonts in Plan 9 and Inferno! Just edit your $home/lib/profile and change the font line. Those scroll bars are crippled. In the Plan 9 world, to scroll up/down you have to move your mouse to some tiny button and left click it. Sorry mate, Plan 9 makes real use of all three mouse buttons. Left/right is up/down. Middle is where you want the scroll bar. The only problem is people aren't use to such so different ideas.

    15. Re:Hmmm.... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Acme doesn't use widgets or a toolkit. It talks to /dev/draw directly like most Plan 9 applications.

    16. Re:Hmmm.... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you can't have widgets or a toolkit implemented over /dev/draw. Saying there's no widgets/toolket is like saying "You can't write a graphics library for a dumb framebuffer."

      --Joe
  8. Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only did I have to dig to understand what the story was about, I'm still not entirely sure.

    So, a text editor existed for a very small niche operating system. There already were unofficial ports if you really wanted it. After reading the Wiki page, I'm not entirely sure what makes this text editor special.

    But now there is a LEGAL port for Linux users. Great.

    That's all we need is another text editor to argue over.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by sholden · · Score: 1

      Mouse chording and sam commands.

      It's the anti-christ for people who complain about having to use a mouse or who love keybaord short cuts.

      I spent the bulk of my time in my honours year with wily (an acme "clone" for unix/X11) running full screen - well I guess the bulk of the time was really spent playing risk, bulk of my working time... If you happen to like the interface and it suits you way of doing things it's an extremely productive environment.

      Of course anyone who fits in that category already uses it, and hence this slashdot article is pointless. Plus of course it's the inferno version not the plan9 version. That's like using vim instead of vi...

    2. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 5, Informative
      Basically the idea behind Acme is that it's a GUI editor extensible through shell scripts (IOW extensible thru arbitrary languages). Also any text file can modify the UI, since selecting text and pressing the correct mouse button will execute it as an editor command (or shell script). So for instance you have your .c source open in one window, and another text file open with
      make all
      make test
      make debug
      etc. and you highlight make debug and middle click(I don't remember exactly which button do what) for instance and it will run, making the debug build. It's neat, I never reached the point where I used it as a regular editor though.
      --
      Why not fork?
    3. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      and you highlight make debug and middle click(I don't remember exactly which button do what) for instance and it will run, making the debug build.

      Or you could have that window open, higlight "make debug" and middle click in any shell window with that working directory and it will run the debug build. No special editor necessary.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe I underrepresented what you could do. There is no UI beyond the the text buffers. All the editor commands (cut copy paste, browsing directories, etc.) are "Acme shell" commands. Pipe the results of ls to a buffer and do the proper mouse chord on a selected file name in the results and it would open that file. All the menus/buttons are actually just text files. Sure you may be sitting there with your Vi or EMACS and saying "I can extend my editor thru scripts etc., type M-x whatever or :!some_filter % but Acme let's your File, Edit etc. type things that would normally be menus in a gui text editor be simple text files, editable from within acme itself. I don't know how much it gains you over other ways of extending editors but it is a novel concept.

      --
      Why not fork?
    5. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what is different between dropping down a terminal window and typing into that rather than typing into the text editor and then clicking that?

      It sounds neat on paper, but would it actually save you time?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see now I picked a very poor example, something to easily done in a shell . Imagine a text editor along the lines of Notepad or Nedit. Now imagine that those menus across the top weren't really menu widgets, but rather another text buffer you had open. You can add your own commands, you can customize for what your working on. Also imagine that the results of make are piped into another buffer. When there is an error, you can highlight the part some_file.c:67 and use a mouse chord, Acme will open that file and move the cursor to that line number. Likewise you can pipe grep results to a window and do a similiar thing with selecting filenames, etc.

      --
      Why not fork?
    7. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by guinsu · · Score: 1

      Out of curiousity, couldn't this lead to some rather interesting scripting viruses? I'm thinking Word macro viruses all over again.

    8. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      No more than any other scriptable editor (like Emacs, Vim, etc.).

      --
      Why not fork?
    9. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1
      The incredibly handy feature not mentionned is parameter passing through that click - select some text (say, a function name), and then middle click the word "break" in the window that has GDB running, and before releasing it, chord mouse button one. The function name is passed as a parameter to "break" (by plain text catenation), and then that string is submitted in the gdb window, and you have a break point.

      Then once the debugging session stops and gdb says "stopped at somefile.c:43" you right-click anywhere onthe "somefile.c:43" and it pops open somefile.c at line 43. Awfully handy.

      It takes a couple years of unix experience to understand how to deal with shell scripts and lots of little commands, and then about 30 days of using acme to be sufficiently sold you'll never go back to vi.

    10. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      ...about 30 days of using acme to be sufficiently sold you'll never go back to vi.

      Assuming you're not sitting on a laptop, where "chording" will be anything between an annoying pain and impossible.

      In this I'm with other commenters - a large part of why I started using Vi is because I can use it very efficiently without ever having to touch the mouse. For me, what this editor promises is very close to hell on earth as far as editors are concerned.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    11. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1
      And I'll add that no amount of slashdot discussion can convince anyone that a radically different interaction style can be more effective. As a mouse-hater in a prior life (and still, when I have to use brain-dead environments like windows and linux that cripple it), the utility of the mouse in acme is *very* much different than you are used to. Having to touch my keyboard or pop-up a menu to cut and paste is simply criminal. Not being able to edit the past text in my command history to form a new command, then sweep to send makes me cry.

      It's not a trivial interaction mode to learn, but my text editing/build/debug cycle efficiency is substantially ahead of where I was at with bash & vi.

    12. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      My distaste has nothing to do with the interaction style per se. For me, with a trackpad it is a real pain to position the pointer to within the accuracy of one character; I have to actually drop focus on what I was doing, look straight at the point I want to be and concentrate on the positioning, which is exactly opposite of what I should be doing (ie. focus on my writing, not on operation of the computer). How the editor uses the mouse is beside the point for me, since just having to use it means I've already lost my concentration and brought my writing to a grinding halt.

      And since you're using the keyboard for text input anyhow, using it for movements and operations as well is no extra burden; or are you using the mouse rather than the keyboard for character deletion, cursor movement and new line as well? Perhaps an on-screen keyboard where you can click the characters with the mouse would work for you, so you don't need to use the keyboard at all?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    13. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1
      I agree that laptop "mice" are just plain nasty. I carry a mouse with my laptop, and use it for anything more complex than checking my inbox.

      Regarding mouse vs. keyboard efficiency: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.htm l is a good starting point on the mouse-speed vs keyboard-speed debate. I cringe every time I have to ^C ^V, and Tog advocates it, but the material on perceived vs real speed is worth looking at.

    14. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      I have the same issue with ordinary mice. The problem I have, I think (this is anectotal, not researched), is that the mouse positioning is analog (pixel level positioning at least), while the object of interaction, the text, is digital (discrete secuence of characters). It is altogether possible that if the mouse driver code was written to only allow the marker to jump around in full character increments, that it would become a bit easier. Ideally, you'd have tactile feedback on the device itself to feel those discrete jumps as well.

      And yes, I know about TOG's views on this - I have taught usability design - and I have three comments on it, basically:

      First, his is one study on this, and one study does not a truth make. Second, it is demonstrably false in the particular case of myself - it is really, objectively slower for me.

      And third - and most important - his study famously does not adress _why_ the keyboard feels faster: it feels faster precisey because of what I wrote above, in that you do not lose focus on your task to the same degree as switching input modality does. Measuring only the time from starting to mark to the time the text is moved is disingenious; what should be measured is the time from stop writing to the point you start writing again - or even better, total time to produce the text, thus fully accounting for the effects on task focus disruption.

      This goes the other way too, of course: good professional graphics applications allow you to select all common operations by just touching particular spots on the graphics tablet so the user does not have to disrupt their workflow by going to the keyboard or other ancilliary device needlessly.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    15. Re:Vi vs Emacs vs Acme? by plalonde2 · · Score: 1
      JanneM writes:
      This goes the other way too, of course: good professional graphics applications allow you to select all common operations by just touching particular spots on the graphics tablet so the user does not have to disrupt their workflow by going to the keyboard or other ancilliary device needlessly.

      Which is what I think acme does - remove the point/select/execute workflow interruptions by driving all of them to the mouse with a consistent interaction model. Although it relies on the mouse for pointing and buttons for operations, the interaction is substantially (IMO) more useful than the standard mouse interface. It does, however, require more learning to make good use of - both of the interaction, and of the composition-of-primitives approach that characterizes Unix and even more so Plan9.

  9. Hmm... by Null+Nihils · · Score: 1

    some of the links are already unresponsive. I bet they weren't expecting a website about a text editor to get Slashdotted!

    That's right! You never know when or where we will strike! ...and leave a smoking crater where the server was.

  10. Looks interesting, but does it fold? by mad+zambian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This looks like it could be fun. Certainly a new and baroque method of blowing your own feet off. I have skimmed the pdf and this looks like a fun tool to play with.

    On a vaguely related matter..
    I have been looking for an editor that does folds.

    If I have to scroll through hundreds or thousands of lines or code, I would love to be able to take a chunk of code that I am not interested in seeing right now and fold it out of sight, with an indicator that there is a fold in the text.
    Functions that has been tested, comment blocks etc etc.
    What else you could do with folded blocks (cut, copy...) ? Not really botherd, but I would still love an editor that let me fold. (I can do the spindle and mutilate just fine already)

    I know the Occam development system for Transputers had an editor that folded but I have not seen one since.

    Anyone?

    --
    Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
    1. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Vim does it out of the box, there's a folding module for Emacs. Are there other editors?

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Chirs · · Score: 1

      Seriously, why hasn't anyone done this?

      It would basically be similar to hiding columns in a spreadsheet. Makes perfect sense to me...

    3. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Null+Nihils · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head, two GPL programs that do code folding are: Code::Blocks (cross-platform, wxWidgets based) and Notepad++ (sadly, Windows-only).

    4. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by moranar · · Score: 1

      They have. Kate and Vim at the very least. I don't know about Emacs, but if I had to bet, my money would be on "yes, it can".

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    5. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by pchan- · · Score: 1

      Well, Visual Studio 2005 does it, but somehow I get the feeling that's not what you were looking for. I believe one of the KDE editors does it (Kate?), KDevelop certainly does (see screenshot).

    6. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by rhild · · Score: 1

      JEdit, a free, open source text editor does folding. http://www.jedit.org/

    7. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Yes Kate does do it. I like Kate a lot, it has: incremental search, auto-completion, a nice UI, spell-checking, a nice UI and is very configurable.

    8. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by trixtah · · Score: 1

      Notepad++ is based on SciTE (http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html) code, which is a fully functional editor in its own right, complete with folds and plugin support. Anyway, SciTE has both Windows and Linux packages, the latter requiring GTK+.

    9. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by shaka · · Score: 1

      Eclipse does it, as does IntelliJ Idea. I'd say most modern IDEs do it.

      --
      :wq!
    10. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by lon3st4r · · Score: 1
      Well, I know of one editor called kate; where I found this functionality pretty knifty. It's more or less a default with KDE. Visit http://kate.kde.org/ for more info.

      BTW: I use an editor called textpad, which is quite a pack! http://www.textpad.com/

    11. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by EricHsu · · Score: 1
      Textmate for Mac OS X has a folding feature which works in many situations. Very extensible and hackable, and has a small and active developer community around it.

      No affiliation beyond satisfied customer and occasional bundle contributor.

    12. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by bensch128 · · Score: 1

      Kate is great.

      I would use it more if it had sets of key-bindings instead of forcing you to modify one at a time.
      It's too painful to start changing them to the emacs style otherwise.

      Oh and it needs more powerful tagging as well. (well, maybe kdevelop would be better...)

      Cheers,
      Ben

    13. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      Folding sounds nice in principal, but makes it very easy to write terrible code. I worked with someone who used a folding editor - we wrote a reasonable sized (50000-ish lines) project together. The problem was that the folding makes it trivial to copy a block of code, say 300 lines, change a few lines of it and have it almost invisble. A fold containing 3 lines looks identical to one containing 10000.

      When 90% of the code is tucked away behind n levels of fold, it becomes hard to see exactly what's going on. The conclusion we came to was that if you need to fold code, then it should be broken down into smaller functions, which is good for internal modularity, and helps to maintain nice looking and understandable code overall.

    14. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Fire up vim and type ':help folding'

      This will show you the half dozen styles of folding supported by vim. If you've
      got vim version 7, folding rules are now part of the syntax definitions that you're
      already using for syntax highlighting. To take advantage of that, type ":set foldmethod=syntax".

      I haven't tried that yet (don't use folding much when coding...just in config files), so
      I can't vouch for how good an experience it is.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    15. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know Vim can fold text, and I'm postive Emacs can as well.

    16. Re:Looks interesting, but does it fold? by Matt+Amato · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but Visual Studio 2003/2005 does code folding very well. Most people around here seem to love to trash DevStudio, unfortunately, its unjustified, it remains the best IDE out there to date (for the languages that it supports). I wish there was a Unix equivalent, I try KDevelop every now and then to see how it's coming along, but I have yet to be satisfied (and yes, I've tried eclipse).

  11. what acme is about by geoff.collyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's misleading to call acme a text editor, though it can edit text.
    It's an alternative user interface that attempts to make better use
    of mice than many systems do. Read the above-cited paper if you're
    curious.

  12. Bah! by twattock · · Score: 1

    WinVI all the way baby!

    --
    Sig sig go away come back another day
    T.U.G.
  13. Can it be better than EditPad [Lite]...? by ivi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Free, easy to use & WYSIWYG... Does one really need more?

    The paid version also does heaps for web makers (in HTML, etc)
    and programmers (using other languages).

    1. Re:Can it be better than EditPad [Lite]...? by Dracos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      EditPad (I've been using Pro for several years now) is without a doubt the best editor available on Windows. There is a binary version available for *nix, which unfortunately for GNOME users, is compiled against Qt.

      Features:

      • Unlimited undo
      • Syntax highlighting for most common languages (anyone could write a highlighting scheme for, say, brainf*ck if they wanted to)
      • Almost unlimited simultaneous files open (my personal record: 784)
      • PCRE-based search and replace
      • Highly customizable interface
      • Can use external executables/scripts to manipulate open files

      In short, EditPad rules. The only features it lacks for me is a way to disable insert/overwrite mode switching. Folding would be nice too. Are you listening, Jan?

    2. Re:Can it be better than EditPad [Lite]...? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      EditPad is quite nice, but very buggy on Linux unfortunately. jEdit makes a good alternative, it has all of its features and many more.

    3. Re:Can it be better than EditPad [Lite]...? by jma05 · · Score: 1

      I never quite understood the charm of EditPlus given that it is commercial and closed source. I do all of the above and more with SciTE. And it's open source and available everywhere. It looks great on GNOME.

      I always contended that it was the choice of those who have not heard of SciTE and that was indeed the case with all the EditPlus users I know.

    4. Re:Can it be better than EditPad [Lite]...? by phasm42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've been beta'ing EditPad Pro 6 since the start of the year, and it supports folding. The betas are done and now it's at RC2, so I think it'll be ready soon. Jan is very responsive to bug reports -- every bug I've submitted was responded to and fixed in the subsequent beta. I tried out a lot of text editors before I found one I really liked enough to buy, and this is definitely it. In fairness, I don't know much about EPP5 -- I started out with EPP6 since it had the macro support I wanted.

      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  14. Mod parent up by ems2 · · Score: 1

    The post is worthy of general reading. Mod up insightful please.

  15. 3D? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    his two-dimensional text editors

    How does it differ from a three-dimensional text editor? Is that one where the letters get stuck in your nose such that you have to grab a Kleenex if you make a typo?

    1. Re:3D? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      and pop-up blockers become a physical safety feature.

    2. Re:3D? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1
      No, as opposed to a 1D text editor. Implementing a carriage return and word wrapping was quite a feat of software engineering.

      And don't get me started about 0D text editors.

      --
      -
  16. I don't know about this... by Eideewt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just don't get the idea of a text editor that relies heavily on the mouse. Keyboard shortcuts seem like a much better idea, since your hands are already on the keyboard when you type. Plus, I find it difficult to quickly click on text with the mouse, since it consists of a bunch of tiny little rows and letters. I tried Sam (another mouse-centric text editor) for a while, and while I thought mouse chording was a really neat idea (one I'd like to see applied more often, although it's not really possible with my touchpad), I never did get to like mouse-based text selection. Does anyone who has got the hang of it want to enlighten me? Whenever I click on text I end up way off, but in the general area, and have to slowly move in on it. Do you get much more precise with practice?

    1. Re:I don't know about this... by Whanana · · Score: 1

      I used Acme quite a bit, and the ideas are innovative but they seem a to be a bit more on the cool side than the useful side. Despite all the ooohs and ahhhs, I never got the hang of it and went back to x-emacs. \

      The mouse chording is a neat idea, but again speed suffers when you move to the mouse. If someone could figure out how to do one handed typing - mouse chording would be the way to go, but in the absence of that it wasn't great for me.

      To be fair, I didn't ever use it exclusively, so I may have not grown as accustomed to it as I should have, just my 2 cents.

    2. Re:I don't know about this... by gmiley · · Score: 1

      Use double-click to select single words, this speeds up the whole process of executing a single word command. Double-Left-Click, Single-Middle-Click.

    3. Re:I don't know about this... by nickos · · Score: 2, Informative

      "If someone could figure out how to do one handed typing"...

      How about the BAT keyboard, CyKey or other chorded keyboards?

    4. Re:I don't know about this... by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty good at the dragging part. It's getting to the word in the first place that trips me up. Still, I guess it might be a little easier, horizontally speaking.

    5. Re:I don't know about this... by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***I just don't get the idea of a text editor that relies heavily on the mouse. Keyboard shortcuts seem like a much better idea, since your hands are already on the keyboard when you type. Plus, I find it difficult to quickly click on text with the mouse, since it consists of a bunch of tiny little rows and letters.***

      You're probably dead on -- at least for yourself and a bunch of other users like yourself.

      My own operating style tends to use the clipboard a lot, and even on Windows where the clipboard is pretty reliable, I end up swearing a lot at some otherwise sterling applications (Firefox comes to mind) where the marked text often doesn't match the mouse clicks without several retries or resorting to marking with the shift key and arrows keys after several failed attempts to get the mouse to do this simple job right. It doesn't help that some applications overload the mouse selection and will try to execute the text or move it if they decide that is what was wanted. Other applications will decide to scroll the screen in response to mouse motions while trying to mark text. The results are kind of entertaining -- when this is happening to someone else.

      I have a perfectly good Linux installation that I hardly ever use because the IBM CUA keyboard conventions for cutting, pasting, and copying to the clipboard are erratic. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't. The mouse conventions work (in KDE anyway) except for the problems in not marking the right stuff, but they require me to mark, drop down a menu, and select an option. That's really tedious.

      Who needs all that? A mouse centric editor might be fine if the infrastructure to support it were rock solid. But even after a couple of decades of GUI it's not. No one seems to be in much of a hurry to do the uninteresting and probably quite extensive work required to fix it.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    6. Re:I don't know about this... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Well each window has a text buffer at the top. Surely it isn't hard to get to the top of the window? By window I mean an acme window.

    7. Re:I don't know about this... by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean it's easier because it's often at the top of the screen? I tend to over- or undershoot when it's not. Yes, I guess it would be easier at the top. I think I'll just build it and try it out for myself, because I'm not sure how well I understand the system.

    8. Re:I don't know about this... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Its eaiser because don't have to highlight...

  17. Occam & folding editors by jd · · Score: 1
    Folding editors would be great - folding word processors would also be cool for much the same reason. And, yes, I remember Occam and the Transputer! Wonderful devices, sadly neglected. But all is not lost, for Kent University has an Occam compiler (KROC) for *nix boxes (Linux, the BSDs, etc). The documentation sadly proves that (code skill) x (documentation skill) = constant. However, it really blows the socks off any other programming language out there, feature-wise.


    I don't know if KROC has been ported to Plan9/Inferno yet, but it damn well should be.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Occam & folding editors by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      However, [Occam] really blows the socks off any other programming language out there, feature-wise.

      I used Occam for a while, and I'd have to disagree... it had many nice aspects, but feature-wise it lacked (for a good reason) some of the most useful features around. In particular, it didn't have any dynamic memory allocation at all. This meant that it was easy to statically prove properties of an Occam program, but... no dynamic data structures really cramps your style!

      The really nice thing about Occam was the concurrency. Ultra lightweight processes (zero context switch time) and CSP-style channels were just great. That's why I was so happy to play with Inferno's Limbo, which takes these features (well ok the context-switch time isn't precisely zero, but it's pretty darn quick) and adds full dynamism and a really nice syntax. Programming GUI and networky kinda stuff in Limbo is a dream - it's amazing how elegant and useful concurrency can be when you have the right set of primitives. Most "threaded" languages make it gratuitously hard.

  18. Gah! Wrong link! by jd · · Score: 1

    KROC is here. The other is some long-forgotten package, as opposed to a long-forgotten language.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  19. seems pointless to me by m874t232 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's amazing about Plan 9 is the kernel, the file system, and the overall design.

    The user land utilities, GUI, and GUI applications are applications only a mother could love; porting them to another platform seems pretty pointless. Note that the ideas behind acme really aren't all that original--they're derived from the equally unsuccessful Oberon interactive environment.

    Putting a Linux userland on top of a Plan 9 kernel or implementing Plan 9 kernel features in Linux (either in the kernel or in userland) would seem useful to me, but porting the Plan 9 GUI?

    It is nice that people are thinking about new interaction paradigms, but I just don't think this is a good one. If you want this kind of flexible, multi-purpose windowed environment aimed at expert users, Emacs is probably still your best bet.

    1. Re:seems pointless to me by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
      Emacs is, in my personally confident opinion after a decade of emacs use[1], a lousy interaction paradigm. The chording paradigm of vi is significantly better. If something could be done that's even more efficient, it would be great.

      Eivind.

      [1] Last year with vi keybindings, and then dropping emacs altogether and going with vim for about five years now.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    2. Re:seems pointless to me by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      I used vi for about 10 years and thought it was great. Then I started using acme. There's definitely a learning curve, but I've been using it constantly for about 8 years now, and I now find it really frustrating if I have to use anything else. The fact that the output of any command is text that can be used to drive acme itself is amazingly powerful. It also has sam's structural regular expressions which, combined with arbitrary undo/redo make it easy to figure out a way to make almost any kind of regular change to a large text file. If you can't, there's always the entire shell's command-line power only a middle-button click away.


      One thing that I think people find hard to understand about acme is just how powerful the mouse actually is. By assigning universally applicable actions to each mouse button (select, execute, look), and giving it the entire window contents as its domain (almost any part of which is user-changeable), the mouse is no longer something that must be moved in order to let the keyboard do something, but an expressive tool in its own right. Add mouse chording to that, enabling cut, copy and paste of arbitrary pieces of text with no keyboard input necessary, and it's the keyboard which is more seldom used. I've looked over the shoulder of developers using acme to edit and debug software and seen 20 minutes go by without the keyboard being used once! And in that time, programs have been run, projects built, and many source files browsed and edited.


      It's not something that can be fully appreciated until you've used it for a while. But once hooked, you won't find anything to beat it.

    3. Re:seems pointless to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emacs uses a lot more "chording" than vi.

  20. Abaco by ems2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is also a new web browser called abaco for Plan 9 that is progressing fast.

    1. Re:Abaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How does 'fast' progress? Or did you mean 'progressing quickly?'

      Adverbs people!

      Remember: something *is* good, but *done* well.

    2. Re:Abaco by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Its very fast when considering they almost started from scratch only a few months ago.

  21. Rob Pike did much more than a Slashdot interview by JoeF · · Score: 5, Informative

    Geez, if the Slashdot interview is all people remember...
    These ignorant kids of today ;-)
    Try his famous book The Unix Programming Environment...

  22. Yes, it's offtopic. by Admiral+Justin · · Score: 1

    Acme: Stand Alone Complex... makes me wonder...

    I wonder if this can be used to begin coding the AI used in Tachikoma

    --
    You will be baked, and there will be cake.
  23. Yes - Emacs does folding? by willijar · · Score: 1

    Emacs certainly can do folding on both programming and text files (outline-mode) - and possibly for other file types. It also has selective display which hides lines on the basis of indentation which would work for many file types not otherwise covered.

  24. Still not clear. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Emacs can have macros, run shell scripts, etc. DEC VMS' default editor - EVE - supported DCL (DEC Command Language) script. uMicro's OS (ghastly as it was) was fully object-oriented, in that everything was an object and you could run whatever methods you liked on that object.


    I absolutely love playing with new technology - can't get enough arcane, bizare and downright weird programs that do stuff that's novel or just plain strange. I hope ACME fits into this category, but as the above list shows, it has tough cometition before it qualifies as new & interesting (at least to me). Being able to store scriptlets in one window to apply to another might qualify, if there's some new tangent to it. Oh, and I'd have to be sure that the method used to apply scripts in this way did not pose a security issue -- the vast majority of all the viruses currently for Windows are macro viruses, and the early (AT&T) history of Unix includes tales of viral backdoors.


    Trust me, I want to be convinced, if for no other reason than I'm running out of new programs to play with. The nightmare of withdrawl symptoms, suffering from stale sameness... It doesn't bear thinking about!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Still not clear. by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly Mr. Acme-expert over here to be honest. I've only played with it occasionally, and not recently. I'm also not really trying to "convince" anyone, just trying to provide a quickie explanation of what I understand makes Acme different. You also have to remember that Acme was designed to run on Plan9, so a lot of what it can do had a lot to do with 9P. Acme is sort of bringing the whole pipes / everything is a file concept up to the level of the editor. I would suggest if you want to be convinced, you either a) download it and try it out or b) Read this: http://cm.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme.html which was linked to in an earlier post.

      --
      Why not fork?
    2. Re:Still not clear. by sholden · · Score: 5, Interesting


      I absolutely love playing with new technology - can't get enough arcane, bizare and downright weird programs that do stuff that's novel or just plain strange. I hope ACME fits into this category, but as the above list shows, it has tough cometition before it qualifies as new & interesting (at least to me). Being able to store scriptlets in one window to apply to another might qualify, if there's some new tangent to it. Oh, and I'd have to be sure that the method used to apply scripts in this way did not pose a security issue -- the vast majority of all the viruses currently for Windows are macro viruses, and the early (AT&T) history of Unix includes tales of viral backdoors.


      In acme *all* text is a potential command. You middle click and it executes the selection you clicked on (expanding if the "selection" was nothing - ie. if you click a on anywhere on the word make it runs the make command), you can chord to select a region and execute it in one go.

      Of course that means that anytime the text "rm -rf $HOME" appears in a document if you are stupid enough to select and middle click it bad things will happen. Of course the target audience knows better.

      Because everything is editable and executable text you end up doing things like typing the command you can't quite remember the arguments for (find for example), selecting it, chording on the word man somewhere, editing the example text in the displayed man page to be the command you want and then chording it to run that command. Then of course you right click the output of that find command to open the file you were looking for.

    3. Re:Still not clear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sure acme must be different than emacs somehow, but...

      In acme *all* text is a potential command. You middle click and it executes the selection you clicked on (expanding if the "selection" was nothing - ie. if you click a on anywhere on the word make it runs the make command), you can chord to select a region and execute it in one go.


      eval-last-sexp, or select region, shell-command, yank?

      Because everything is editable and executable text you end up doing things like typing the command you can't quite remember the arguments for (find for example), selecting it, chording on the word man somewhere, editing the example text in the displayed man page to be the command you want and then chording it to run that command.


      type "find", select, M-x man? shell-command-on-region?

      seriously, what you describe feels like emacs with Opera-like mouse gestures, and I hate the mouse.
    4. Re:Still not clear. by sholden · · Score: 1

      If you hate the mouse you will hate acme, It is absolutely mouse dependant. It doesn't just use the mouse - it depends on the mouse, you can't change active windows, save, open files, etc without using the mouse (well you could do something like "echo put | /mnt/acme/12/ctl" in a shell but that'd be a litte excessive).

      It is different than emacs because it has a very small set of commands which interact very well with each other to provide all the functionality that emacs provides. It also has a completely different work flow to most editors. The plan9 "the application is a filesystem too" approach means instead of having an embedded lisp interpreter the whole os is acme's language. Open the file /mnt/acme/23/event and any application can intercept all the acme commands that act on the window with ID=23 and hence change their behaviour (basically other than cut and paste and mouse text selection operations commands are instead output to the file and the file reader does whatever it wants instead), commands can be sent to acme (with or without events being intercepted) by writing to /mnt/acme/23/ctl. "grep foo /mnt/acme/*/body" will search all the text in all the acme windows. Work-alikes such as Wily miss out on the whole filesystem thing since they don't run under plan9 like operating systems - Wily replaces it with a unix domain socket, which just isn't as conveniant.

      Most people *hate* it though. Those who don't like the mouse especially so. Those who like the mouse also tend not to like it since it uses the mouse the a very different way to "the norm".

      If it happens to fit your brain and workflow though, it's mana from heaven.

    5. Re:Still not clear. by greenegg77 · · Score: 1

      Of course that means that anytime the text "rm -rf $HOME" appears in a document if you are stupid enough to select and middle click it bad things will happen. Of course the target audience knows better.

      Great. This is just what we need. Now all of those [insert name of stupid ethnic group here] text viruses that ask you to delete all of your files and then forward the email will just need you to middle click...

      --
      --- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
    6. Re:Still not clear. by descil · · Score: 1

      why not just type FILENAME=`find . -iname comment.txt`;vi ${FILENAME}

    7. Re:Still not clear. by sholden · · Score: 1

      Why not just type vi `fine . -iname comment.txt`?

      Oh yes, because the whole idea was you couldn't remember the argument syntax and hence needed to run man find first, and then edit a conveniant example in the manpage to do you find the files modified after this date, between these sizes, and whatever else, and then of course only wanted to open one of the returned files not all of them.

      Obviously there's nothing you can do in acme that you can't do with vi and the shell - both vi and the shell provide you with fully functional programming languages after all.

    8. Re:Still not clear. by sholden · · Score: 1

      Without the typo might work better of course.

  25. Thanks for the feedback by mad+zambian · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the feedback guys. I shall have a look and experiment.
    Apart from the vi derivatives. I know I will end up as a smoking pair of boots for this, but I always thought that vi was short for Vile.

    Medic!

    --
    Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
  26. Back to the old days... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

    Ahh back to the good ol' days... when the editors were on crack

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  27. Sam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about sam?

    1. Re:Sam? by nickos · · Score: 1

      A Windows 95/NT version of Sam, currently distributed in binary form only, is available from ftp://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/research/sam.exe

  28. Re:no digg by ems2 · · Score: 1

    This actually made digg.

  29. Yuck by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

    This program (the Windows standalone) is very much broken and doesn't seem to work at all on my Japanese copy of Windows XP. When I brought up the main screen and tried highlighting things, there was window drawing problems making the program look completely borked. Plus, what should I do if I want to run a shell command 'Del?' It might be in the docs, but by the time I might have gotten to documentation on that, the interface was destroyed.

    Quite unprofessional.

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  30. Acne for Windows? by Mathiasdm · · Score: 1

    Great! We've already got spyware, adware and viruses. Time to get out the Roaccutane!

    Oh, wait... Acme?

    --
    Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
  31. Yet another unusable pre-alpha release by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    This looks like yet another non-working pre-alpha release of something, with a twist: it's not even clear what it is...

    I thought it was (or could be used as) a text editor in Windows, so I wanted to try it out.

    It said somewhere to right click "Acme" for documentation.

    Starting acme.bat opens a window in which you can indeed right click "intro" to see a man page about an obscure OS or something called Inferno. Unfortunately, right-clicking "acme" just gives "File not found".

    To illustrate my comment, I wanted to copy stuff from these windows, but there doesn't seem to be a copy command: No copy menu, right-click doesn't give a menu, Ctrl-C doesn't seem to do anything. Ok, so the copy command is something else. This thing might have a much better way of copying text than what we are used to, but since the man page for Acme is "File not found"...

    There may be great ideas hidden behind this thing, but I will never find out.

    If an experienced IT professional and occasional programmer who is using Windows, Linux and Macs daily can't even see what this thing is suposed to do and can't read some documentation, then what's the point?

    1. Re:Yet another unusable pre-alpha release by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Caerwyn said he was going to make a new release in a few days with the bug fixes. Most importantly this one. Check it out again in a few days. The Plan 9 from User Space acme has been well tested and is mostly bug free.

    2. Re:Yet another unusable pre-alpha release by dysprosia · · Score: 1

      Acme out of Plan 9's water perhaps isn't a good idea: everything is consistent in Plan 9, but not when you take one program out and put it into Windows, where the conventions are different. For example, your copy problem is most likely solved by performing mouse chording. This is standard in Plan 9, but obviously not in Windows. See the Wikipedia article which deals with Acme's chording.

      By the way, people have already listed the Acme paper above, which may help.

  32. This is not an OFFICIAL port btw. by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    It's Caewyn's personal playings.

    just FYI

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  33. Re:This is not an OFFICIAL port btw. by ems2 · · Score: 1

    The port to Inferno is offical. This is just making Inferno into a standalone package.

  34. Acne for Windows by doghouse41 · · Score: 1

    For some reason I read it this way when I first saw it. Do I need to get out more?

  35. Excels in one area by kahei · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is quite simply the hardest software to pick up and figure out I have EVER encountered -- and I'm a pretty advanced user of vim _and_ developer studio. I can honestly say that in 20 minutes of playing around I had not yet established what the application was for.

    Right click on the help link, 'acme(1)' and a window comes up called "/+ Error Del Snarf | Look". Hmm, I'd like to get rid of that. Click on the little box in the corner of the window. The window gets bigger -- not really big, just a _bit_ bigger! Ok, try right clicking on the little box. Now the window is really big! Further right clicks do nothing, but now a _left_ click makes it smaller again and I can see the window I started with, which is now only 1 line high. Try to drag the window divider -- no effect. Left click 'Del', right click 'del', double click on the window divider -- you can make it change size a bit but you can't close it.

    Restart application and this time remember to _not_ click on the help link. Try to select text with middle mouse button because apparrently that 'executes' it in some way. Incomprehensible, uncloseable window reappears -- but THIS time it has a long list of lines starting with a # character in it! How to make it go away... maybe click left AND right buttons on the title bar? Er... I have now pasted some text into the title bar of the window. I edit it to say 'Del Snarf' again -- but something seems to have broken now. Better restart.

    And so it goes.

    Brilliant! I'm not actually going to try and use this ever again (because it's pre-alpha, it doesn't seem to do anything vim doesn't, and it's too mouse-driven), but it is one of my favorite pieces of software anyway because at least it's not just unix/java/lisp/MSVC 4.0 redone. It's something totally, utterly different.

    And it is sooooooo haaaaaard to uuuuuuse! Ah, I love it, but I love it in an 'I am going to delete you now' kind of way!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:Excels in one area by rpeppe · · Score: 1

      RTFM

    2. Re:Excels in one area by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      I did RTFM, or at least RTFP -- the paper on Acme's design. And when TFP cheerfully described how Acme doesn't have an internal concept of global search and replace but rather relegates those to tool commands that one pipes together, I was certainly impressed. Just, you know, not in a positive way.

      Okay, that's not quite fair. From a design standpoint I think Acme is brilliant and I'll probably look at it again in more detail (I used it a few years ago, but briefly). From a practical standpoint, nothing I've read or seen so far about Acme's design convinces me it's a better way of doing text editing, though--just a different way of doing it. It's hard to see a serious advantage given us by replacing our ^S (or ^XS or Command-S or even :w) with a middle-click on the word "Put"; even some of the more elaborate functionality Acme's approach provides has close analogues in modern text editors--in TextMate, for instance, I can select text with the left mouse button and then right-click the selected text to perform functions on it, including executing it as a shell command. Of course, I can also select it with the keyboard and press ^R, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that just may be faster.

      There are some theoretical advantages Acme still has, I suspect, that just naturally flow from its command-search-select approach, but for the majority of users would they really outweigh the advantages of a syntax-sensitive text editor? Is Acme superior to Emacs' PSGML mode for SGML/XML editing, or TextMate's Rails-specific modes for Ruby on Rails?

      Acme and Plan 9 in general are really fascinating, no question. Yet, they still remind me of a friend's comment on Smalltalk a few years back: "Smalltalk is the language of the future... and always will be."

    3. Re:Excels in one area by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      It's hard to see a serious advantage given us by replacing our ^S (or ^XS or Command-S or even :w) with a middle-click on the word "Put"

      From a user interface standpoint, one obvious advantage is that of affordance. Any text in acme affords the command of that name. Command key combinations are hidden out of sight - "Put" is visible and evident, as are "Undo", "Redo", etc, etc.

      And when TFP cheerfully described how Acme doesn't have an internal concept of global search and replace but rather relegates those to tool commands that one pipes together, I was certainly impressed. Just, you know, not in a positive way.

      Actually, that is one aspect that has changed since the paper - sam-style editing commands are now built in to the editor.

    4. Re:Excels in one area by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      I suppose I'd question whether "middle click on the word Put" actually "indicates how to interface with that object or feature," as the Wikipedia article puts it, any more than a menu that says "Save... ^S" on it. There's nothing about either of those that really implies what to do with the text no the screen -- the user has to have information that can't be derived from the UI appearance: in the latter CUA-ish case, that you can click on menu titles and release the mouse button on a command, and that commands will show you the keyboard shortcuts in the menus; in the former Acme-ish case, that middle-clicking on any word will try to interpret that as an action, and that "Put" is the name of the action for storing whatever you're working on.

      Also, I suspect once one learns the mnemonics, the keyboard interface becomes faster. No matter how good the mouse control may be--and I say this as a Mac user who bitches about how Windows and most Unixes woefully underuse the mouse by comparison--a well-thought-out keyboard interface will nearly always trump it.

      Actually, that is one aspect that has changed since the paper - sam-style editing commands are now built in to the editor.

      Good! I'll be downloading it and giving it a look when I can. I'm aware that to some degree I'm doing the equivalent of reviewing a movie based on watching its trailer. :)

  36. Aw, you gave up way too soon by kahei · · Score: 1


    You didn't even scratch the surface! Wait till you start trying to figure out how the scroll bars work! It's a mouse driven system... in which left-clicking on a scroll bar does _nothing_! You can't drag the tracker up and down! It's actually _less_ usable than an xterm scrollbar! But by right clicking, middle clicking, and left+right clicking, you _can_ eventually scroll back to the place you want!

    OR CAN YOU?

    This thing's great. Wait till you get to the bit where you middle-click and drag over a word to run a command (because pressing a couple of keys just wouldn't require enough dexterity!) and then you have to guess whether it will consider the 'command' to be a unix shell command, an internal editor command, a Plan 9 filesystem path... of course, while you're thinking about that you'll likely select a character too many, with catastrophic results!

    This software only needs one thing -- a good way to trick unsuspecting people into trying to use it!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:Aw, you gave up way too soon by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      This software only needs one thing -- a good way to trick unsuspecting people into trying to use it!

      Hey, what if we wrote it up and put it on Slashdot?

    2. Re:Aw, you gave up way too soon by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      The scrollbars do require one to RTFM (I remember being very confused the first time I encountered them) but actually make a lot of sense. The middle button works similarly to using the left button on a conventional scrollbar. The left and right buttons scroll up and down relatively. The further down the scrollbar you click them, the further the movement. Clicking near the top moves line-by-line; clicking near the bottom moves page-by-page. Once you're used to it, it's a very efficient UI design - no moving the mouse to point to little clicky arrows.

      Wait till you get to the bit where you middle-click and drag over a word to run a command (because pressing a couple of keys just wouldn't require enough dexterity!)

      For any one-word command you don't need to drag over the text - just click anywhere in the word (this conveniently excludes execution of the many unix shell commands that require an argument in order to be dangerous, e.g. rm). Alternatively, you can select the text at your leisure with the left button, and then click with the middle. I have to say that as a confirmed acme user who is also fairly cack-handed, I always do it this way, rather than dragging out text with the middle button.

      you have to guess whether it will consider the 'command' to be a unix shell command, an internal editor command, a Plan 9 filesystem path...

      Well, since you've chosen the text yourself, presumably you know what you want it to do. And it's not too hard - there are only a small number of internal editor commands, and they all begin with a capital letter (e.g. Del, Undo). There's no distinction between shell commands and filesystem paths beyond where the shell looks for the executable. So ls differs from /usr/rog/bin/blah but the difference is obvious!

    3. Re:Aw, you gave up way too soon by ems2 · · Score: 1

      The scrollbars do require one to RTFM
      The scrollbars work like how the rest of them work in Plan 9. Left/right click is up/down. Middle click takes you to the hovered place. Makes it really quick if you just want to go up a bit because now you don't have to find some shrimpy button at the top/bottom of the scroll bar to push which takes a lot longer.

  37. ACME for Windows... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1
    ACME for Windows

    This is not a surprising considering that the MS OS has only just entered into puberity. I would say that some clearesel or Acutane might help.

    Personally, I think ever MS OS, and apps like IE should come with a hefty does of aerosel Valtrex to spray in and out of your computer.

    Otherwies, all things Micorsoft she be given thier MMR vaccince before entering the world.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  38. Not to troll or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but do we really need this in 2006? Seriously, it's based on a 1995 paper and with all due respect, it looks 1995 as well. What can this thing do that any modern text editor within Windows / a decent Linux desktop environment can't do?

    1. Re:Not to troll or anything... by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      Unlike any modern text editor within Windows or Linux, (and to be fair many people here are talking about vi (1976) and emacs (1984) here) acme is an integrating environment. Second-by-second, you build little operations to help accomplish your goals. Along the way, you can use throwaway (or more permanent) shell scripts to help with any more complex operations. For example, run any program that prints a file name - the name is then immediately available for use; right-click it, and up comes a window to edit it; middle-click it to execute it; give it as an argument to a command by typing the command name in front of it.

      The unix command line uses text as a powerful representation medium - acme makes it more powerful still by making all that text amenable to the editor commands, avoiding the restrictiveness of the command-line.

      Seriously, it's based on a 1995 paper and with all due respect, it looks 1995 as well.

      The prettiness of the user interface has absolutely nothing to do with how useful, usable or life-enhancing a program is...

    2. Re:Not to troll or anything... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is a 1994 paper. Much has changed in acme and Plan 9 but it still is currently the best piece of work explaining acme. In the future, maybe the Wikipedia article will be better because its updated, but today that is not the case.

  39. Interesting by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
    How does it translate in terms of RSI problems? I'm willing to handle a learning curve, though I'm a bit worried about the fact that I use editors remotely in shell windows most of the time now.

    Eivind.

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    1. Re:Interesting by rpeppe · · Score: 1
      The only glimmer of RSI problems I've ever had came when I was using a keyboard interface which required much use of Control- key combinations. I find using acme very comfortable. I get the feeling (and this seems to support the idea) that gesturing with the mouse uses a different area of my brain from the creative/analytical processes that I'm working on. For me, this makes for a very relaxing editing experience - most editing processes happen as directly as if I'd reached out and used my hand. This might help with RSI or not - but as far as using the mouse goes, it's like using your hand after taking a boxing glove off!

      If you're editing over a remote link, it really depends how limited you are in the protocols you can use. If you've only got telnet/ssh, you're probably screwed. If, however, you can run something on the other end, then you've got a world of opportunity, as this (remote access) is the kind of thing that plan 9 and inferno excel at. Using a straight telnet/ssh link these days makes me feel like I've got one arm tied behind my back.

      For using acme remotely, the best option is to run something, for example u9fs to export the files you wish to edit, then import the filesystem, whereupon you can use acme to edit the files in it. It's also possible to run acme remotely, (by using inferno or drawterm and making a cpu connection), but the graphics speed will then be predicated on the speed of your connection, which can make this unrealistic.

    2. Re:Interesting by justine_avalanche · · Score: 1

      > If you've only got telnet/ssh, you're probably screwed.
      Actually, sam (the other editor out of the same family) accepts ssh session (i.e. ssh the files across or something like this). Check the man, I'm sure it's in there. (in plan9port)

  40. I'm underwhelmed by metamatic · · Score: 1

    So, this Acme editor lets you select any piece of text, and execute it as a shell command, with the results appearing in another window.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but if I valued that functionality, I'm pretty sure I could have it in vim with a macro or two.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:I'm underwhelmed by sholden · · Score: 1

      It's just a programming environment, almost by definition anything you can do in it you can do in vi or emacs.

      It's not some amazing leap in technology it's just a progam that puts text on the screen for you to edit.

      If you don't try it you'll never know if it's methodology suits you better - though if writing a vim macro or two to do such thing seems like a good approach to you I suspect you're not going to like it at all. I'd put my money on you hating it and B2ing Exit pretty quick.

  41. Still not clear-Lisp Machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm. It sounds a bit like the early days of Lisp machines and Concordia.

  42. Criminy! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Acme SAC supports unlimited undo, a structural regular expression based editing language, mouse chording, plumbing, a programmable shell, networking, an IRC client, a wiki client, and the complete tool set of the Inferno operating system (mk, limbo, debugger, mount, bind, ...)

    and a paaaaartridge in a pear treeee!

    Doesn't emacs have all this?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Criminy! by rpeppe · · Score: 1

      emacs doesn't have structural regular expressions.

  43. Alternate download for Acme by rjdohnert · · Score: 1

    Here is an alternate download link for Acme http://www.bentoll.com/~rjdohnert/Acme.zip

  44. Re:Rob Pike did much more than a Slashdot intervie by ems2 · · Score: 1

    The book was at the top of this interview.

  45. *chuckle* by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    And I thought Linux zealots were annoying. :-)

    In general, I give Bell Labs high marks for usable command lines. (I started with Bourne Shell almost a decade and a half ago, and use Bourne Again these days. Never could stand C Shell derivatives.) I've never been a complete fan of their UIs—going all the way back to the mouse pointer that points one of four directions depending on what quadrant you're in (with hysteresis!), such as the UNIX PC and 620 Terminal did from within Layers—so I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    I'll stick to my eleventy-billion xterms and spartan X desktop, and you can stick to acme. It's obvious you're not interested in winning converts by actively demonstrating the flexability of your favorite solution, but rather just rely on unconvincing screen shots, an assertion of superiority, and feigning indifference to others' opinions and criticisms. I don't feel like rewriting acme in order to determine if I prefer it.

    --Joe
    1. Re:*chuckle* by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      acme is not everything

      this is my desktop : http://www.maht0x0r.net/desktop.jpg

      I am indifferent to your opinion.

      > It's obvious you're not interested in winning converts

      take it, leave it, whatever

      http://cm.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/ was all it took me.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:*chuckle* by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Flat grey desktop with no icons? Cute. I usually go for dark blue.

    3. Re:*chuckle* by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      It's the Plan 9 from Bell Labs monoculture.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter