Comments on: SlickEdit v11

By: sohbet

sohbet — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:29:47 +0000

thanks

By: oyun oyna

oyun oyna — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:30:01 +0000

The idea of creating a useful documentation for such projects is quite good, but should not permit to forget that you should also create a technical documentation, referring to all the classes, functions, etc..

By: Oyun

Oyun — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:59:55 +0000

thank you

By: Proxy Dinle

Proxy Dinle — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:59:35 +0000

thankssz

By: MÃƒÂ¼zik Dinle

MÃƒÂ¼zik Dinle — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:59:14 +0000

thankss

By: Magneto

Magneto — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:57:06 +0000

Visual Studio has no match nor comparison.
- Face it -

By: dantel

dantel — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:51:09 +0000

Thanx you nice text

By: Webmaster

Webmaster — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:04:29 +0000

I think you did a great job of pointing out the major strengths and weaknesses of the book.

By: Ã…Å¾arkÃ„Â± SÃƒÂ¶zleri

Ã…Å¾arkÃ„Â± SÃƒÂ¶zleri — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:28:24 +0000

I think,Ã„Â°t is Very nice information…

By: Chat

Chat — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:51:30 +0000

Ã„Â°t Ã„Â°s Very Nice Ã„Â°nformation…

By: Simon Martin

Simon Martin — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:58:44 +0000

A while ago I investigated quite a few different code editors (C/C++) and SlickEdit came out on top. AFAIR the finalists were UltraEdit, SlickEdit, Programmer Studio, and Zeus.

SlickEdit beat them all in every aspect except Programmer Studio’s “Remote project”, where you can edit, compile, run and debug applications on a remote server. This is the coolest thing I have ever seen and I have been trying to get SlickEdit to implement it.

The two features that sold me on SlickEdit are:

1.- I write code all day, every day. I like to keep my fingers on the keyboard and type. This is such a boost to productivity, and SlickEdit is fantastically good at it. But it takes a little time to get used to the shortcuts.

2.- Code browsing/searching is unsurpassed as far as I am concerned. SlickEdit preparses you development environment, not just you file includes, so you can search for functions in includes you haven’t included yet!

Over time I have learnt other things as well, but that will happen with any tool you use, these 2 really stick out for me.

By: maarten

maarten — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:56:04 +0000

okay, this quote is stolen from their own promo site:
“Calling SlickEdit an editor is like calling the F-16 a single-seat airplane.” -Mac Stevens, SlickEdit user since 2003
Still, I think this is entirely accurate.It takes some time to learn to fly this one, but it flies higher and faster than any of the others.
BUT I do admit, this depends very much on the language you work in. I’m talking c++ now. Your mileage may vary especially if there’sother good tools, like Eclipse for Java, Zend for PHP, or any powerful text editor for some of the other languages.

To answer sylvain’s question — why buy if there’s free tools — well, the standard editor for eclipse/CDT (the c++ environment for Eclipse) sucks big time. Its basic code analysis is just plain broken. Everything that you love about Java support in Eclipse, well, it’s just not there for c++. Jump to function definition? Forget it. Show all references for this symbol? Nope. Calculate through the state of all #defines at a given point ? Nope.
SlickEdit has about THE best code analysis and refactoring support for c++ on the planet. Even better than Visual Studio 2005, which does have very good c++ “Intellisense” .
Problem is with c++, for anumber reasons, it’s just much much more difficult to get your code analysis and “intelligent autocomplete” etc working for c++ than for, say, java.
Basically, you have to almost fully interpret the code.
Anyway – It costs – but this plus the Eclipse debugger makes for a good c++ alternative to Visual Studio, especially for cross-platform developers.

By: sandro

sandro — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:58:47 +0000

I've been searching for a great cross-platform editor for quite some time. I was always fond of SciTE but found Notepad++ and PSPad to be good lite-weight Windows editors with useful built-in tools for web editing. Going back to Linux I began using scite-tools to further extend SciTE making it a bit more like textmate. Scite-tools seemed promising but after reading efficient editing in vim and noticing that I'm coding more on my laptop I forced myself to learn more vim commands. Thanks to gvim and a few plugins (aedit, rdark, surround, [nerdtree, snippetsemu]) it's been about a month of happy vimming.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:36:11 +0000

PSPad is by far the most efficient and cost-effective text editor i’ve used recently. It’s freeware, reliable and great for PHP & CSS coding. It doesn’t offer some of the advanced features discussed here, but sometimes the simplest solutions are the most appropriate.

By: j_king

j_king — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:39:27 +0000

I use SCiTE — free, lightweight, loads fast.

Multi-buffer; predefined, customizable, and user created syntax highlighting; code and word completion; user-definable snippets; etc etc.

By: Scott Garman

Scott Garman — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:24:09 +0000

I work with several people who swear by SlickEdit (they’re mostly Windows and embedded Linux developers who work with C and C++). I tried SlickEdit for a while and found it to be overwhelming and too expensive for my tastes.

jedit, however, is an editor I’ve enjoyed using for the past few months that I would describe as “SlickEdit-lite.” It’s cross-platform free software (open source) and has a very diverse set of plugins you can enable to customize it and add features for various languages. I’ve used it when developing with C, Ruby, PHP, HTML, Javascript, and CSS.

Multi-pane editing is one thing that’s really nice about SlickEdit and jedit. I wish TextMate had it too.

By: Johan Bakken

Johan Bakken — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:38:46 +0000

After reading this review, I did some research and came across what looks like a similar but much better alternative for myself; Activestate Komodo. At least, on the surface, it is a much more appealing product that seems easy enough to learn. SlickEdit, on the other hand, looks like it is way too complicated to learn if the point is to see if the program is right for me.

By: Dan Johnson

Dan Johnson — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:34:42 +0000

I used UltraEdit a lot when I was using Windows. Since switching to Linux (Ubuntu) I've tried several editors, and found that my favorite is cross-platform, I could have been using it all along! jEdit has been wonderful to work with, and with its plugin system provides the functions I was looking for in other editors. Of course, editor preferences vary a great deal among coders. Find what works best for you and your needs.

By: Dean Collins

Dean Collins — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:28:30 +0000

$284 is WAY!!! to much to spend on an editor. UltraEdit is $ 39.95 and is cram packed with features. It only runs on Windows, but I don't see that as a problem.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:10:55 +0000

@ sylvain – thanks for letting people know that this feature is available in Eclipse. It has been a while since I looked at Eclipse – I use Zend Studio day to day. As to why people pay for an editor instead of using a free product I’m sure there are many reasons. Zend Studio is commercial and the reason I pay for it rather than use Eclipse or other editors is that, for PHP, I have found I’m most productive using it. So it is worth the price. Sometimes just one or two features can make all the difference, simply because they suit the way you work – and if those features save you 10 minutes a day they pay for the software soon enough.

By: sylvain bannier

sylvain bannier — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:49:30 +0000

I particularly like the concept of Ã¢â‚¬ËœBackup HistoryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢

This is a native eclipse feature, like most of the features on slickEdit site. There is some rather good PHP/XHTML/CSS/JS plugins for eclipse out there. Why should one buy SlickEdit instead of using free, opensource, strongly supported and multiplatform tools ?

By: MC

MC — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:16:49 +0000

You could always try the SlickEdit Eclipse plug-in instead for native Mac OS support.