As I said before, there a probably a few items on wish lists (my own is obviously the most important) that might take TextPad to 5.0. Basically though it's a text editor - if the product is good it's going to reach a point where it works, has a good feature and is well-tested and stable. If you go any further then things are just getting bloated.
It's still not broken, what could maintaining it under OS possible add?
Future version
Moderators: AmigoJack, bbadmin, helios, Bob Hansen, MudGuard
-
Simon Mikkelsen
Re: Future version
>Rich
There's tons of great Open Source software in development.
Netscape/Mozilla isn't dead at all. The OS gues just like to make things right before making a release, witch looks like they are slow. Eg MS would have made a release way before.
>Steve
TextPad i really good, but as you say yourself, there's still things that can make it better. Some of the things I had heard is editable macros and I have talked a lot about code compleation. But after I have tryed http://www.slickedit.com/, witch basically is TextPad with a code compleation for 5-6 languages (with some extreamly annoying limitations) and editable macros, I don't think it wise to go for a multilanguage code compleation - it's messy, expensive and the limitations are too many if it shall be a good tool.
But now when somebody said that TextPad is still under development, I don't think it should be OS.
There's tons of great Open Source software in development.
Netscape/Mozilla isn't dead at all. The OS gues just like to make things right before making a release, witch looks like they are slow. Eg MS would have made a release way before.
>Steve
TextPad i really good, but as you say yourself, there's still things that can make it better. Some of the things I had heard is editable macros and I have talked a lot about code compleation. But after I have tryed http://www.slickedit.com/, witch basically is TextPad with a code compleation for 5-6 languages (with some extreamly annoying limitations) and editable macros, I don't think it wise to go for a multilanguage code compleation - it's messy, expensive and the limitations are too many if it shall be a good tool.
But now when somebody said that TextPad is still under development, I don't think it should be OS.
-
Alan Bellows
Re: Future version
Ok, Rich.... I gotta disagree with you on one point. While it is true that Netscape has sucked since 4.0, Mozilla 1.0 is an excellent piece of software. This is coming from a guy who has been developing web pages since '96, before it was fashionable.
Until the 4.0 browsers appeared, I was very much in the Netscape camp. When the 4.0 browsers appeared, it didn't take me long to switch to IE... Netscape 4 was crap, and remains so to this day (Netscape 6.x is based on pre-1.0 Gecko engines, so naturally it sucks). I used Opera for awhile, which I liked, but it had its quirks and its pricetag, so I stuck with IE most of the time. I am actually quite outspoken about my animosity for Netscape 4.x and 6.x, their rending is lousy, and they are spotty at best on their adherence to standards.
When Mozilla 1.0 came out, it took about 2 weeks until it became my browser of choice. Great rendering, runs fast, popup blockers, great web development tools built in (Javascript debugger, DOM viewer, etc), tabbed browsing, and more yet. IE is now the browser I only open when I am testing compatibility for pages I've developed. If Netscape 7 uses Mozilla 1.0 as I've heard it will, then there will be a very good browser hiding beneath all of the junk that AOL/Netscape will no doubt bury it in.
I make no argument about open source software, it'll have it's failures and successes just like any software effort. But I for one, and many of my fellow web developers, consider Mozilla 1.0 a great success.
Alan Bellows
Until the 4.0 browsers appeared, I was very much in the Netscape camp. When the 4.0 browsers appeared, it didn't take me long to switch to IE... Netscape 4 was crap, and remains so to this day (Netscape 6.x is based on pre-1.0 Gecko engines, so naturally it sucks). I used Opera for awhile, which I liked, but it had its quirks and its pricetag, so I stuck with IE most of the time. I am actually quite outspoken about my animosity for Netscape 4.x and 6.x, their rending is lousy, and they are spotty at best on their adherence to standards.
When Mozilla 1.0 came out, it took about 2 weeks until it became my browser of choice. Great rendering, runs fast, popup blockers, great web development tools built in (Javascript debugger, DOM viewer, etc), tabbed browsing, and more yet. IE is now the browser I only open when I am testing compatibility for pages I've developed. If Netscape 7 uses Mozilla 1.0 as I've heard it will, then there will be a very good browser hiding beneath all of the junk that AOL/Netscape will no doubt bury it in.
I make no argument about open source software, it'll have it's failures and successes just like any software effort. But I for one, and many of my fellow web developers, consider Mozilla 1.0 a great success.
Alan Bellows
-
smhaus_net
Re: Future version
Initial note : from other threads, development does continue.
Rather than open-source, a plug-in type API might be good. Editable Macro's would also be a step in that direction. This way, people could contibute solutions, but a bad contribution would not hurt the core product.
Rather than open-source, a plug-in type API might be good. Editable Macro's would also be a step in that direction. This way, people could contibute solutions, but a bad contribution would not hurt the core product.
-
smhaus_net
Re: Future version
Initial note : from other threads, development does continue.
Rather than open-source, a plug-in type API might be good. Editable Macro's would also be a step in that direction. This way, people could contibute solutions, but a bad contribution would not hurt the core product.
Rather than open-source, a plug-in type API might be good. Editable Macro's would also be a step in that direction. This way, people could contibute solutions, but a bad contribution would not hurt the core product.