Talk:Source-code editor

message: Regular users can't use text editor and most text editor user are programmers. So I don't see why there is a need for a separated page mentioning the same thing. --Minghong 10:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, structural languages like XML are not "source code" in the traditional sense. I used to do a lot of work with text editors, back when I was a "regular user". :) func(talk) 03:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Text editor]]? 

message: I changed this list to be in alphabetical order, instead of just random order.  Might be better to have it listed with the most frequently used first, but that would probably lead to 'religious-type' wars.  T-bonham (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Well-known" editors -- list order

message: I propose that we qualify the editors listed here by a precise criteria of features.  To be a source code editor, rather than just a text editor, it must have most of the features listed in Comparison of text editors, subsection Programming features.  --A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
:Most of the examples given do not meet that set of criteria TEDickey (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for being a Source Code Editor 

message: I'm the first to revert spamming of articles, but I don't think my addition of SlickEdit to the list was spam (my addition of it was reverted).  It's a widely used source code editor and is probably more deserving than some of the other programs in the list, such as Visual Studio, which isn't a source code editor at all, but an IDE.  Don't get me wrong, I love Visual Studio, but to use it just to edit source code would be rediculous.  So, I'm lobbying for agreement to allow it to be added.
While I'm at it, I'd lobby for NEdit as well.  Any objections to either? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, there's a notice in the html comment to really keep the list short; just the typical editors for each platform. Maybe add a separate article so everyone can list his pet editor (with possibility to add an overview of features or something like that); ...--LimoWreck 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The list of text editors might be an appropriate place indeed, as there would indeed be a lot of duplicate information between a list of source code editors and a list of text editors... --LimoWreck 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SlickEdit

message: What about SciTE that is the best source code editor I've ever seen.
You should add it to the list.
:If SciTE is the best source code editor you have seen, then it must be the only source code editor you have seen. It is just one of the dozens of quick-and-dirty editors made by adding some wrapper code around SCIntilla editing component. And it is not well known either. --PauliKL (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SciTE 

message: Some basic criteria should be kept in mind, and those are listed at the top of this topic.  Editors for C, Basic, Java, even JavaScript are suitable. TEDickey (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a programming language, but still source code; as good as LaTeX, XML and any config files are. --Demonkoryu (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The sentence limits this to "computer programs".  Perhaps you'd like to move this topic away from consensus on what "source code" means TEDickey (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HTML can be considered a declarative programming language and thus constitutes source code for computer programs (e.g., web applications and web frameworks usually have HTML source code). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  html is not "source code" 

message: I have fixed the page. It had excessive examples and was becoming "List of source code editors". I also added a new section in the same edit. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you create a list article ? May be welcome.  Yug (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed excessive examples 

message: Currently there are no Jetbrains editors - popular examples include Webstorm, PHPStorm, PyCharm. These are very popular. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is sort of the flagship product. Thoughts on adding one of these editors to represent Jetbrains? II | (t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a different topic for IDE's.  This topic (which is now little more than a list of promotional links) started as source-code editors TEDickey (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jetbrains editors such as IntelliJ IDEA 

message: The current "History" section chooses a few popular examples which aren't close to covering the historical sense of this topic.  In doing so, it misleads the reader TEDickey (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the History section and I completely agree that it is not very good right now. I added the  Expand Section Template. Do you think we still need the NPOV template? Squidroot2 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

text: yes - as written it implies that vim was the first to provide the syntax-highlighting feature (it was not that, nor even the first "vi" to do this) TEDickey (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History" section 

message: Review reliable source guidelines versus polls and the like TEDickey (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it was reworded to make it clear that the claim is simply that those editors were at the top of Stack Overflow's Survey and not that they necessarily are the most loved editors? Squidroot2 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia topics are supposed to be summarizing information gathered and analyzed by knowledgeable people (that's the point of reliable sources).  Gathering and selecting things in that way makes the Wikipedia editors into authors TEDickey (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that makes sense. Thank you for your patience in explaining this; as I'm sure you can tell, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. I have removed the statements that were based on Survey Results. Squidroot2 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

text: no problem.  Polls tend to be self-selecting, and biased. TEDickey (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  polls are unreliable sources 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. By consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Source-code editor →  – Sinmplify the title. Interstellarity (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment Noting that Source code doesn't use a hyphen, and article implies source code is only one type of code (Bytecode is very different for instance), so not sure if this would be uncontroversial. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure that it never takes a hyphen, even when it is used as an attributive modifier (as discussed in point three of MOS:HYPHEN)? Graham (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

text:  I'm also not convinced that this would be uncontroversial. "Code editor" could mean several different things. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should go to WP:RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

text:  Ping current participants. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

text: To Sinmplify the title would not follow the Wikipedia guidelines for common name TEDickey (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 September 2022