Talk:XEDIT

message: IMO we can merge The Hessling Editor with XEDIT. I'm a user of XEDIT since about 1982, later KEDIT on DOS and OS/2 until today. On Linux I'd install THE immediately after Regina as soon as possible. -- Omniplex 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're two separate editors--even if one is a clone of the other--they should probably remain as separate articles because even if it hasn't happened already they'll likely to start to have diverging features. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 04:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THE and KEDIT are both meant to be as near to XEDIT as possible, adding a few minor differences. The original XEDIT 1981 had of course no mouse support, just an example ;-) KEDIT is more or less frozen, no further development. For THE I'd guess it's similar (you could ask Mark Hessling, from time to time he posts in comp.lang.rexx). They are "finished" products in a certain sense, you can add anything you need with REXX macros. And there won't be any radical new "curses" (THE uses Mark's port of curses). -- Omniplex 04:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly support merging, but I think that we should move the merged page to "XEDIT and similar editors" or maybe "Eastern Orthodox Editors".  There are one or two others that could also be included in the article.  This is such a niche area though that surely it only deserves one article in WP.  As for the drift apart, I think that fear is misplaced.  XEDIT was functionally stabilized long ago. Thruston 10:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree (against).  I used XEDIT for several years, developing hundreds of macros.  While THE is inspired by XEDIT, it is definitely not the same thing - not compatible except at a superficial level.  I pointed that out to Mark Hessling long ago Tedickey 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Are the pages for XEDIT and Xedit referring to same proram? If so, the later can be made a link to the former -- Anupam Srivastava 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're the same.  The program is correctly known as "XEDIT", not "Xedit".  RossPatterson 01:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, links copied, page redirected. -- Omniplex 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: XEDIT/Xedit

message: The opening of this article, after barraging the user with a bundle of platform names and jargon, suddenly throws in references to KEDIT without warning or explanation.  I can't claim to have played with either editor, but I'd really like to suggest that someone good with words and familiar with the editors clean things up so that a newcomer can understand how a KEDIT relates to an XEDIT.  Do the two really belong in the same article in the first place? I know I was lost when I saw "XEDIT" listed under "K" in the category Windows text editors.
Weichbrodt 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have disentangle the part of the article that is actually about XEDIT from the part about XEDIT adaptations for PC or UNIX. --Gerry Ashton 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: XEDIT/KEDIT

message: There are two reasonable ways to present the external links - currently they are introduced roughly in chronological order.  Alternatively, they could be presented in alphabetic order Tedickey 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've just moved the two that weren't in alphabetical order. RossPatterson 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on "External links"

message: While I like this edit, the Holy wars link leads to no relevant information. De-linking does not seem appropriate (as "holy war" is jargon here) - what to do?--Noe (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy war 

message: I added a sentence on XEDIT/REXX macros.  I don't have wide enough knowledge to proclaim them "unique", but many macro languages just replay keystrokes.  XEDIT exposes most of its internal operation to REXX and the direct access to internal variables seems to me to be unique.  If I'm off base, please correct. Peter Flass (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: XEDIT and GNU Emacs are similarly open with their scripting languages, Rexx and Emacs Lisp, and always have been.  I wouldn't say XEDIT's openness with Rexx is unique, but it was absolutely unusual for the early 1980s. RossPatterson (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Around the same time XEDIT was in use, ISPF was also in use, initially on systems that ran MVS and TSO. It had substantial abilities to be customized per user, but I don't recall if it had the same capabilities Peter Flass is referring to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: That's possible, but while working with SPF/ISPF from late 1981 to late 1983, that wasn't something known to me or my coworkers, as noted here TEDickey (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macros 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on XEDIT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522122634/http://omniplex.om.funpic.de/xedit.htm to http://www.kedit.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removing the Text Editors category from this topic with the statement that Free Text Editors is a subcategory of Text Editors does not match reality: XEDIT is not a Free Text Editor TEDickey (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tedickey, OK, sorry, I haven't noticed that nowhere in the article it is stated that it is free. Then "Free text editors" category definitely should be removed. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, only now I realized that there is a section with the open source software called "THE", that's definitely confusing. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: yes: see above - it was merged into this topic a while back. TEDickey (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: re-reading some of the above which uses the past tense for XEDIT, it's worth pointing out that it's apparently still in use (see manual TEDickey (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and so is Kedit, which is still for sale (though Mansfield says "We discourage purchases of KEDIT by new users or organizations not already familiar with the program"). Nø (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories  

message: John McPhee writes in his book Draft No. 4 how he started with KEDIT when he got his first computer, how he uses it and nothing else still, and profiles KEDIT's author. I'd expect that to appear in this article and his one. Ralph Corderoy (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  John McPhee is a prominent KEDIT user