VE: A Small Fast Text Editor

Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: VE: A Small Fast Text Editor
started by: mac57

Posted by mac57 on July 12 2005,22:37

DSL includes nano and vim, console based text editors. I would like to suggest that DSL might be improved by adding VE (Visual Editor) to set of included editors, perhaps replacing nano. Like nano and vim, VE is a xterm/console based editor, but it has a much less cryptic command set, good online help, and a well written user manual. As well, by definition, VE is always in text input mode, so you can't wreak havoc on your file by starting to type without entering INSERT mode first, like you can in editors like vim.

VE has a large and very complete functionality set, including such upper end things as rectangle support and interactive macros, and yet like DSL, it is focused on being very small and very fast. The executable is only 69K. No RPM needed - just unpack the distribution tarball and run the executable.

You can get VE at www.campbellware.com. Try it out, I think it would be a worthy add to DSL.

Posted by Max on July 13 2005,16:48

Adheres to the GNU Public License so inclusion shouldn't be a legal problem...

< VE License >

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on July 14 2005,05:03

VE doesn't have NEARLY the number of features of vim, and is more than tvice the size of nano.

Nano is a wonderful, simple editor. Perfect for beginner programmers, or just some quick editing.

Vim is powerful, feature-rich, and still quite tiny.

VE is an intersting little editor, with a humorous history, but I don't think the features-to-bytes ratio puts it in DSL's field.

Just my opinion.

If busybox didn't do vi emulation these days, I'd put it into the rescue floppy I've been working on. It's a nice midway between nano and vim.

-J.P.

Posted by mac57 on July 14 2005,15:31

I must disagree on the comments on VE. At least on my system, the nano executable weighs in at roughly 129K, while the VE executable weighs in at 69K. It is exactly the features-to-bytes ratio that makes it such a favorite. Plus, a feature set comparison between these two will show you that VE has enormously more features than nano, while being at least a third smaller.

I do agree that it is not a vi replacement - even if it were, pound for pound and feature for feature, vi/vim has such a long history, and is so well known by everyone, that it would be a crime to omit from ANY release for ANY reason!

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on July 14 2005,19:16

Code Sample

dsl@box:~$ ls -l /bin/nano-tiny
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37932 Nov 9 2003 /bin/nano-tiny
dsl@box:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 386120 Jun 12 2004 /usr/bin/vi
dsl@box:~$ ls -l work/ve-3.5b-release/ve
-rwxr-xr-x 1 dsl staff 69640 Jul 13 2005 work/ve-3.5b-release/ve

Nano is about 37k, vi is 380ish, and ve is 67k.

-J.P.

Posted by mac57 on July 15 2005,13:49

Interesting! No arguing with it. My mainstream system is Mandrake 10.1 CE, and on it, vim weighs in at a mighty 1.2M, and nano (not nano-tiny - never heard of that before) at 129K. VE looked pretty good in a features per byte comparison at those sizes: at 37K for nano-tiny, I agree that it is a good deal. You get a lot for your 37K (assuming nano-tiny has all the features that nano has). I'll have to play with it some more and find out. I had assumed that "nano" was "nano".

Posted by mikshaw on July 15 2005,14:36

In DSL, both nano and vim are shrunken versions of those found in other distros. In most cases, as far as I can see, the features removed are not vital for most users. For example, DSL Vim does not have syntax highlighting, macros, plugins, etc., which take up a lot of space but do not really hinder the user when removed.

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on July 16 2005,00:34

The only thing, as far as I can tell, that was removed from nano is the spellcheck function. Spellcheck features are fat, usually anyway.

Posted by andrewphoto on July 26 2005,22:39

I hope that a Linux cannot be a Linux without vi/m, although, in the spirit of freedom...
Would like to know a little of flightlinux training.

Posted by andrewphoto on July 26 2005,23:08

Single UNIX Specification, Version 3

< http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/ >

Posted by andrewphoto on July 26 2005,23:16

On that page, in the Alphabetic Index, under V! you''ll find vi.
I noticed that, under L, the locate command is not specified.
After you do, /usr/bin/updatedb (builds database)
I find the locate command to be rapid, rather than trawling with the find command.