I did a Google search to find out the maximum file size for Notepad++ 5.0.3 and one site said...it's 2.0 meg. If this is true...there's no way I'm sticking to Notepad ++ for coding. This is a ridiculously small file size to be dependent on this program for any coding. In fact, I can't understand why Notepad in its 5th version iteration still has this small file size limitation? Is it because the programming tools used to make Notepad++ won't allow a big recompile? What's the story on this?
In the meantime..I'm seriously thinking of plonking my cc to purchase UltraEdit. Filesizes can be opened up to 2 to 4 gig on that editor.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Notepad++'s limitations are largely due to the use of Scintilla (google...) for the editing component. You can open far larger files that 2meg. I just tested a 6meg file with 4.9.2 - plain text though, so no syntax highlighting kicking in.
I'm curious why you think a 2meg limit would be bad for *coding*? If you have source files that large, you have a serious monolithic maintenance problem. Yeah, OK, a thing like the SQLite amalgamation is ~3 megs, but that's generated from a makefile and edited as individual files.
IMHO NP++ works just fine as a generic text/source editor, and while hugefile support wouldn't be bad, too much would have to be changed to support it. Is it really so bad opening a separate app if you need to deal with 100+ megabyte logfiles?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
When you consider apps like UltraEdit can open filesizes with syntax color coding intact for up to 2 to 4 gig...then I take those seriously. As to trying to write code without syntax highlighting...this would be the number 1 reason why my eye doctor would tell me not to use the computer too much. But if I told him/her I'm doing code with only black colored font against just a plain white background..so I could work with "more" to strategically allow filesizes larger...then he/she would tell me to get one that allows color coding to help me save my eyes.
I would NEVER consider programming in any language code without color highlighting. I recently tried EditPad Lite to see if I could code in there with color highlighting...and no go. I stopped using it.
Just to show you how ridiculous it is to try coding anything with editors that only allow 2.0 meg files...try coding a Microsoft Excel file with VBA (which has built in color coding) and see the file size after finishing. I guarantee you it won't be less than 10 meg for starters. And this is for simply entering code in the beginning without setting up the worksheets with data to input! So please, don't try defending Notepad++ simply because it's an opensource project...but has a serious file size limitation of a mere 2.0 meg. It's almost inexcusable for this program to have this limit when UltraEdit and others (admittedly shareware) don't have this embarrassing shortcoming.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm sorry, but are you trolling? 10meg sounds pretty ridiculous, even if you have some serious flawed VBA logic and aren't doing proper code re-use. Besides, Excel supports separate modules, so you can split things into more manageable sizes. Also, don't confuse .xls filesize with VBA size, you're obviously note going to open the .xls in a text editor.
I decided to give NPP 5.0.3 a spin, and feed it a .cpp file so syntax highlighting would have to kick in. The largest file I had (_win32.cpp from Microsoft's detours package) is 1.2 meg, so I duplicated it some times to form a 6meg file. Took an uncomfortably long time to load with 4.9.1, 5.0.3 loads faster but (as far as I can tell) defers some parsing until later on (so scrolling randomly is slow, until parsed).
No crashes, but it still shows that it's not meant to deal with such large files (and don't try using the Function List plugin, takes forever to scan for signatures :)).
Again, Notepad++ is "marketed" as a Source Code Editor. It's not really meant to deal with Huge Files, and that isn't really a shortcoming considering it's design goals. Supporting huge files properly would either mean ditching the scintilla editing component (which would mean so much code rewrite that it would basically be a new editor), or a lot of code workaround which would increase complexity and the risk of bugs. IMHO it's better to focus on other features and ironing out bugs, than trying to do such big core changes.
If it doesn't float your boat, too bad - you get what you pay for. Saying that a *source code* editor has serious shortcomings because it doesn't handle huge files gracefully? That's plain silly.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
No...I don't think my gripes about 2.0 meg size is trolling...just telling it like it is. Did a search on Wikipedia on text editors and I found an open source alternative that doesn't have the file size limit. Won't mention it here as to keep this only about Notepad++. Nevertheless I'm grateful for Wikipedia as it dispassionately compared all the text editors out there including Notepad++ and I found the alternative that "floats my boat". It's free and doesn't have the file size limit.
Shame...as I really do like Notepad++. Has a lot going for it...except the tiny file size limit. I'll come back to it when the limit is lifted...in the meantime I'm changing my Windows XP file extension support to the alternative that handles the large file sizes.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Won't mention it here as to keep this only about Notepad++.
Why is that? Are you afraid we will get angry with you?
Come on, be so cool just to say what you use now.
Do you think you are the only one who dislikes (part of) Notepad++?
It's very clear that we'd rather have you swith editors than keep complaining here with messages that reach a 10 meg size limit. You would drastically confuse the search engine that is also present on this advanced forum. You didn't expect to find that here, did you? Why google? Why do it the difficult way?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I just can say that the article about 2 MB size limit in Notepad++ is VERY stupid.
VERY stupid, I can repeat it again and again.
In fact, maximum file size in Notepad++ is limited by two things:
1) memory required by Scintilla to show the file + some memory for Notepad++ to open the file
2) amount of physical memory (RAM) on your PC.
As an example, I have just opened a UTF-8 file with a size of 80 MB. Yes, 80 MB.
The memory required by Notepad++ to open this file was about 250 MB while the file was opening.
After the file has been opened, Notepad++ memory usage became 180 MB.
So, as it's not hard to calculate, 500 MB of free RAM (if you have 1 GB of RAM in total, and 500 MB is used by Windows and some running programs) would allow you to open a file with a size about (80*500/250)=160 MB.
How do you think, 160 MB is greater than 2 MB ????
So, please, don't quote incompetent information and don't make false conclusions basing on this information.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Why would Wikipedia feel it necessary to list whether text editors can handle large file sizes?
I didn't start this thread so that it could degenerate into a pissing contest. I started it because I read in Wikipedia that Notepad++ doesn't support large file sizes. I asked this question in a previous thread and the respondent admitted that this feature wasn't implemented. I opened this thread to read responses on how people who use Notepad++ get around this limit if they need to design programs with large amount of coding to do, that's all. Anything wrong with that?
I'm sure Notepad++ satisfies the majority of users who choose to use it...I'm not yelling wolf to get them to stop. It's just that I felt it was okay to start a thread on this "curiosity" mentioned on Wikipedia about the Notepad++ limitation and see how people get around it.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Why would Wikipedia feel it necessary to list whether
> text editors can handle large file sizes?
Because it's a criteria to consider when choosing an editor. I still have an editor or two installed here that have the old MS-DOS *64K* file size limit. (I collect editors, and always look at new ones and old ones to see what they do.)
The error is in taking a Wikipedia entry as authoritative. It isn't. Wikipedia is a good resource to consult, but not the only one you should look at. As mentioned, a simple test install would have demonstrated Wikipedia was wrong, and averted some needless argument.
> I didn't start this thread so that it could degenerate
> into a pissing contest. I started it because I read in
> Wikipedia that Notepad++ doesn't support large file sizes.
> I asked this question in a previous thread and the respondent
> admitted that this feature wasn't implemented. I opened this
> thread to read responses on how people who use Notepad++ get
> around this limit if they need to design programs with large
> amount of coding to do, that's all. Anything wrong with that?
Nope. But an initial post saying "Wikipedia claims a 2MB file size limit for Notepad++. Is this true?" Would have returned a "No it isn't. Wikipedia is wrong." response, and short-circuited various arguments.
> I'm sure Notepad++ satisfies the majority of users who choose
> to use it...I'm not yelling wolf to get them to stop. It's just
> that I felt it was okay to start a thread on this "curiosity"
> mentioned on Wikipedia about the Notepad++ limitation and see
> how people get around it.
It's a bit like the Religious Wars (tm) that sometimes pop up in Unix forms on whether vi or emacs is the One True Editor for *nix machines. People treat criticism of their editor as an implied criticism of *them* for using it, and merry hell breaks out.
If you really need to edit files larger than NP++ is comfortable handing, by all means, use a different editor. I have NP++ installed here and use it happily, but it isn't the only one I use, and it won't be. I don't think a "one size fits all" editor is possible.
I like NP++ for the tabbed interface, plugins, and the support for syntax highlighting on most of the commonly used languages. The big item on my wishlist for NP++ is an actual scripting language, but I don't let the lack of one stop me from using it.
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> If you really need to edit files larger than NP++ is comfortable handing, by all means,
> use a different editor. I have NP++ installed here and use it happily, but it isn't the
> only one I use, and it won't be. I don't think a "one size fits all" editor is possible.
Nice to see other people who have seen the light :)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I've seen the light for many years. The first real text editor I used was a TSO/SPF clone running on an IBM mainframe, and I logged time on DEC minis and Unix boxes as well as PCs. The first PC editor I learned was WordStar, back in the days when you learned it because it might be the only editor available on the machine you had to work on. I kept fluent in it because many other editors either used the WordStar command set or could be told to, and I didn't have to retrain my fingers. (I had WordStar keystrokes defined in emacs...)
Which editor you use depends upon what you need to do and what is available for the platform you're working on. Complaining an editor doesn't do X, when it was arguably never *intended* to do X, is pointless. Get an editor that *is* designed to do X, and carry on.
(And speaking personally, if I have a module of source code so large that a two MB file size limit would be a problem, I call it an issue with the architecture of the application, and evidence that the code *really* needs to be refactored.)
Good luck to dorothyfan1 if he really needs to edit huge Excel files to write VBA code. I assume he's working on the XML format used by Excel 2007. I'm just as happy not having to go anywhere near that task. :)
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I just want to post a clarification. Wikipedia as of today as I type this message never did and does NOT specify the file size limit to Notepad++. It doesn't say the file size limit on ANY of the text editors. It simply lists the editors that can handle large file sizes. The 2.0 meg limit size for Notepad++ is not an argument I'm making up. There is a website that is specifically throwing out this 2.0 file size limit for Notepad++ but my hesitation in posting a link to the site prevents me from doing so here. I can tell you after I visited Wikipedia's listing on the text editors I did a Google search with the search phrase "Notepad++ file size limit" and got a series of links on the very first page of the search results. One of the search results took me to a page that mentioned the 2.0 file size limit.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> There is a website that is specifically throwing out this 2.0 file size limit for
> Notepad++ but my hesitation in posting a link to the site prevents me from doing
> so here.
Why is that? Why would you bring up something as an argument and not clarify?
Aren't we allowed to judge this ourselves?
I really don't understand why you wouldn't consider searching the Notepad++ forums themselves about the subject and rely on a general site like Wikipedia. There really have been numerous posts about this in the past around here and who would know better than users of the very application?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I apologize for not consulting the forums here before checking Wikipedia. Excuse me for checking unverifiable alternative sources before deciding to broach this apparently controversial topic for discussion. I mean no harm. I agree that Notepad++ is a great program...it's just for me I'd like some clarity on the file sizes that can be created using color syntaxing.
By comparison, some proprietary software like Microsoft Excel explicitly tell users the limits of its iterations that come out every so often. One such limitation was the often heard rule you couldn't create complex nesting formulas because the limitation was 7. Now documentation explains this has been lifted to 32. It's nice to know stuff like this.
So in my opinion, it wouldn't hurt to have this information upfront in some documentation built into the program. That's all.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I don't care about syntax highlighting, as I'm not going to *edit* the thing. I want a fast, preferably regex, search, to let me find the specific messages I'm reading the log file to see.
But I probably wouldn't use NP++ to open it to begin with. I'd use a port of the Unix less pager, which can open files of any size.
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is the crux for me...color syntax capabilities on large files. I can *not* afford to code stuff in html or java in just plain black color text and I need color syntax capabilities when I code. Makes it easier for me to follow the trail when I need to edit. This is patently impossible in plain vanilla black on white. I gave up on EditPad Lite precisely because they held up the color syntax color coding as a carrot to whip out the credit card to get the Pro version. I didn't fall for it. I reasoned why purchase the Pro version when I could opt to get a good freeware editor that comes with color syntax coding? Granted...I know there are IDE environments that are really "up there" like UltraEditStudio, EmEditor (which won this year's best programming editor awards), etc. I may still whip out the cc to get one or the other...most prob UltraEditStudio because of the coding capabilities built in - although I'm weighing in on just getting UltraEdit only (price is half of the Studio version).
I queried Adobe's web site to see if I qualified for the Dreamweaver CS3 upgrade as I had Macromedia Dreamweaver 4.0 (which cost nearly 500 bucks back in the "good ol' days). Nope. I was locked out and have no intention of putting up with either the price or the draconian Adobe activation nightmare schemes. So I was delighted when I found Notepad++ and downloaded and tried it. Very nice. But after reading Wikipedia and the other site mentioning the size limit...I had questions that I thought I could ask here. So again we're going back and forth on this issue. However, I do agree the Wikipedia webpage on the editor limits and abilities have to be updated. Especially if word here proves Notepad++ can open file sizes larger than the 2.0 meg what with people announcing they can open 80 mg files. So it is eye opening to see informed information on this forum...but not so informative info on sites like Wikipedia. Then again, I usually "trust" Wikipedia as the info from there seems so dispassionate and official sounding.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The thread is OK, I just wonder why Wikipedia's information looks more convincing than the application itself? I mean, it's not a problem to try to open a large file in Notepad++ and see what will happen.
Anyway, this Wikipedia's article (or whatever it is) MUST be updated because it contains wrong information.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It's easier to TRY OPENING A FILE OVER 2 MEG AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS than post multiple messages to a forum about an app which does not need to be installed to test (can be run from an extracted zip file)
Back under your bridge.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
New post, provided anyone is listening. We use trace statements in our code and for 95% of the trace files notepad++ is great. I have a trace file that is 400MB and too large for notepad++ to open. The 280MB files did open and I was very happy with that. Does anyone know of a way to increase the size of what notepad++ can handle. Or is this issue being addressed
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
@guntherda: When I made the "file too large" patch (integrated since Notepad++ version 5.8) I tested that it was correctly loading a 512MB text file in less than a minute on my core2 laptop. This is without any plugin or lexer styling the file.
If you have a problem loading a 400MB file, try without plugins (rename the plugin folder) and restart Notepad++ without opening any other file before the large file. There is no memory defragmentation implemented in Notepad++ or Scintilla, and it tries to allocate memory for the file as a single contiguous buffer, thus restarting Notepad++ can help loading bigger files.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks frboyer,
I can open the file if it is all I open. The issue is this: Search for all occurances in the file, select one of the occurances towards the end of the 400Mb file and notepad++ shuts down/blacks out/ disappears however you want to say it. I am not sure what direction to take at this point.
guntherda
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I confirm there is a "bug" when double clicking an element in the result of "find all". I tried a 400MB file, and a search with 1500 hits, and it takes lot of time to go to a certain hit (when you double click on it) if that hit is far from current cursor position. That time should be about the same for any line, like "goto line" is. The problem seems to be how the selection is made, moving both ends of the selection one after the other instead of at the same time, and thus having a very large selection during that operation. If the selection is too big, Notepad++ shuts down as you told.
Until this is fixed, you can use "Go to…" (ctrl-g) to go to the correct line. If you double click on a search hit that is close to that line, it will not crash, so you can easily go from one hit to another if they are not too far from each other.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have a better solution… Having a very large selection crashes Notepad++ because of smart highlighting. So, go to menu Settings/Preferences, tab MISC., and disable "Smart highlighting". You should now be able to double click your find result without crash.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I did a Google search to find out the maximum file size for Notepad++ 5.0.3 and one site said...it's 2.0 meg. If this is true...there's no way I'm sticking to Notepad ++ for coding. This is a ridiculously small file size to be dependent on this program for any coding. In fact, I can't understand why Notepad in its 5th version iteration still has this small file size limitation? Is it because the programming tools used to make Notepad++ won't allow a big recompile? What's the story on this?
In the meantime..I'm seriously thinking of plonking my cc to purchase UltraEdit. Filesizes can be opened up to 2 to 4 gig on that editor.
Notepad++'s limitations are largely due to the use of Scintilla (google...) for the editing component. You can open far larger files that 2meg. I just tested a 6meg file with 4.9.2 - plain text though, so no syntax highlighting kicking in.
I'm curious why you think a 2meg limit would be bad for *coding*? If you have source files that large, you have a serious monolithic maintenance problem. Yeah, OK, a thing like the SQLite amalgamation is ~3 megs, but that's generated from a makefile and edited as individual files.
IMHO NP++ works just fine as a generic text/source editor, and while hugefile support wouldn't be bad, too much would have to be changed to support it. Is it really so bad opening a separate app if you need to deal with 100+ megabyte logfiles?
I regularly open up and edit 120mb logfiles with NP++.
I'm not sure I get the drift of this thread.
When you consider apps like UltraEdit can open filesizes with syntax color coding intact for up to 2 to 4 gig...then I take those seriously. As to trying to write code without syntax highlighting...this would be the number 1 reason why my eye doctor would tell me not to use the computer too much. But if I told him/her I'm doing code with only black colored font against just a plain white background..so I could work with "more" to strategically allow filesizes larger...then he/she would tell me to get one that allows color coding to help me save my eyes.
I would NEVER consider programming in any language code without color highlighting. I recently tried EditPad Lite to see if I could code in there with color highlighting...and no go. I stopped using it.
Just to show you how ridiculous it is to try coding anything with editors that only allow 2.0 meg files...try coding a Microsoft Excel file with VBA (which has built in color coding) and see the file size after finishing. I guarantee you it won't be less than 10 meg for starters. And this is for simply entering code in the beginning without setting up the worksheets with data to input! So please, don't try defending Notepad++ simply because it's an opensource project...but has a serious file size limitation of a mere 2.0 meg. It's almost inexcusable for this program to have this limit when UltraEdit and others (admittedly shareware) don't have this embarrassing shortcoming.
I'm sorry, but are you trolling? 10meg sounds pretty ridiculous, even if you have some serious flawed VBA logic and aren't doing proper code re-use. Besides, Excel supports separate modules, so you can split things into more manageable sizes. Also, don't confuse .xls filesize with VBA size, you're obviously note going to open the .xls in a text editor.
I decided to give NPP 5.0.3 a spin, and feed it a .cpp file so syntax highlighting would have to kick in. The largest file I had (_win32.cpp from Microsoft's detours package) is 1.2 meg, so I duplicated it some times to form a 6meg file. Took an uncomfortably long time to load with 4.9.1, 5.0.3 loads faster but (as far as I can tell) defers some parsing until later on (so scrolling randomly is slow, until parsed).
No crashes, but it still shows that it's not meant to deal with such large files (and don't try using the Function List plugin, takes forever to scan for signatures :)).
Again, Notepad++ is "marketed" as a Source Code Editor. It's not really meant to deal with Huge Files, and that isn't really a shortcoming considering it's design goals. Supporting huge files properly would either mean ditching the scintilla editing component (which would mean so much code rewrite that it would basically be a new editor), or a lot of code workaround which would increase complexity and the risk of bugs. IMHO it's better to focus on other features and ironing out bugs, than trying to do such big core changes.
If it doesn't float your boat, too bad - you get what you pay for. Saying that a *source code* editor has serious shortcomings because it doesn't handle huge files gracefully? That's plain silly.
No...I don't think my gripes about 2.0 meg size is trolling...just telling it like it is. Did a search on Wikipedia on text editors and I found an open source alternative that doesn't have the file size limit. Won't mention it here as to keep this only about Notepad++. Nevertheless I'm grateful for Wikipedia as it dispassionately compared all the text editors out there including Notepad++ and I found the alternative that "floats my boat". It's free and doesn't have the file size limit.
Shame...as I really do like Notepad++. Has a lot going for it...except the tiny file size limit. I'll come back to it when the limit is lifted...in the meantime I'm changing my Windows XP file extension support to the alternative that handles the large file sizes.
> Won't mention it here as to keep this only about Notepad++.
Why is that? Are you afraid we will get angry with you?
Come on, be so cool just to say what you use now.
Do you think you are the only one who dislikes (part of) Notepad++?
It's very clear that we'd rather have you swith editors than keep complaining here with messages that reach a 10 meg size limit. You would drastically confuse the search engine that is also present on this advanced forum. You didn't expect to find that here, did you? Why google? Why do it the difficult way?
I just can say that the article about 2 MB size limit in Notepad++ is VERY stupid.
VERY stupid, I can repeat it again and again.
In fact, maximum file size in Notepad++ is limited by two things:
1) memory required by Scintilla to show the file + some memory for Notepad++ to open the file
2) amount of physical memory (RAM) on your PC.
As an example, I have just opened a UTF-8 file with a size of 80 MB. Yes, 80 MB.
The memory required by Notepad++ to open this file was about 250 MB while the file was opening.
After the file has been opened, Notepad++ memory usage became 180 MB.
So, as it's not hard to calculate, 500 MB of free RAM (if you have 1 GB of RAM in total, and 500 MB is used by Windows and some running programs) would allow you to open a file with a size about (80*500/250)=160 MB.
How do you think, 160 MB is greater than 2 MB ????
So, please, don't quote incompetent information and don't make false conclusions basing on this information.
Why would Wikipedia feel it necessary to list whether text editors can handle large file sizes?
I didn't start this thread so that it could degenerate into a pissing contest. I started it because I read in Wikipedia that Notepad++ doesn't support large file sizes. I asked this question in a previous thread and the respondent admitted that this feature wasn't implemented. I opened this thread to read responses on how people who use Notepad++ get around this limit if they need to design programs with large amount of coding to do, that's all. Anything wrong with that?
I'm sure Notepad++ satisfies the majority of users who choose to use it...I'm not yelling wolf to get them to stop. It's just that I felt it was okay to start a thread on this "curiosity" mentioned on Wikipedia about the Notepad++ limitation and see how people get around it.
> Why would Wikipedia feel it necessary to list whether
> text editors can handle large file sizes?
Because it's a criteria to consider when choosing an editor. I still have an editor or two installed here that have the old MS-DOS *64K* file size limit. (I collect editors, and always look at new ones and old ones to see what they do.)
The error is in taking a Wikipedia entry as authoritative. It isn't. Wikipedia is a good resource to consult, but not the only one you should look at. As mentioned, a simple test install would have demonstrated Wikipedia was wrong, and averted some needless argument.
> I didn't start this thread so that it could degenerate
> into a pissing contest. I started it because I read in
> Wikipedia that Notepad++ doesn't support large file sizes.
> I asked this question in a previous thread and the respondent
> admitted that this feature wasn't implemented. I opened this
> thread to read responses on how people who use Notepad++ get
> around this limit if they need to design programs with large
> amount of coding to do, that's all. Anything wrong with that?
Nope. But an initial post saying "Wikipedia claims a 2MB file size limit for Notepad++. Is this true?" Would have returned a "No it isn't. Wikipedia is wrong." response, and short-circuited various arguments.
> I'm sure Notepad++ satisfies the majority of users who choose
> to use it...I'm not yelling wolf to get them to stop. It's just
> that I felt it was okay to start a thread on this "curiosity"
> mentioned on Wikipedia about the Notepad++ limitation and see
> how people get around it.
It's a bit like the Religious Wars (tm) that sometimes pop up in Unix forms on whether vi or emacs is the One True Editor for *nix machines. People treat criticism of their editor as an implied criticism of *them* for using it, and merry hell breaks out.
If you really need to edit files larger than NP++ is comfortable handing, by all means, use a different editor. I have NP++ installed here and use it happily, but it isn't the only one I use, and it won't be. I don't think a "one size fits all" editor is possible.
I like NP++ for the tabbed interface, plugins, and the support for syntax highlighting on most of the commonly used languages. The big item on my wishlist for NP++ is an actual scripting language, but I don't let the lack of one stop me from using it.
______
Dennis
> If you really need to edit files larger than NP++ is comfortable handing, by all means,
> use a different editor. I have NP++ installed here and use it happily, but it isn't the
> only one I use, and it won't be. I don't think a "one size fits all" editor is possible.
Nice to see other people who have seen the light :)
I've seen the light for many years. The first real text editor I used was a TSO/SPF clone running on an IBM mainframe, and I logged time on DEC minis and Unix boxes as well as PCs. The first PC editor I learned was WordStar, back in the days when you learned it because it might be the only editor available on the machine you had to work on. I kept fluent in it because many other editors either used the WordStar command set or could be told to, and I didn't have to retrain my fingers. (I had WordStar keystrokes defined in emacs...)
Which editor you use depends upon what you need to do and what is available for the platform you're working on. Complaining an editor doesn't do X, when it was arguably never *intended* to do X, is pointless. Get an editor that *is* designed to do X, and carry on.
(And speaking personally, if I have a module of source code so large that a two MB file size limit would be a problem, I call it an issue with the architecture of the application, and evidence that the code *really* needs to be refactored.)
Good luck to dorothyfan1 if he really needs to edit huge Excel files to write VBA code. I assume he's working on the XML format used by Excel 2007. I'm just as happy not having to go anywhere near that task. :)
______
Dennis
I just want to post a clarification. Wikipedia as of today as I type this message never did and does NOT specify the file size limit to Notepad++. It doesn't say the file size limit on ANY of the text editors. It simply lists the editors that can handle large file sizes. The 2.0 meg limit size for Notepad++ is not an argument I'm making up. There is a website that is specifically throwing out this 2.0 file size limit for Notepad++ but my hesitation in posting a link to the site prevents me from doing so here. I can tell you after I visited Wikipedia's listing on the text editors I did a Google search with the search phrase "Notepad++ file size limit" and got a series of links on the very first page of the search results. One of the search results took me to a page that mentioned the 2.0 file size limit.
> There is a website that is specifically throwing out this 2.0 file size limit for
> Notepad++ but my hesitation in posting a link to the site prevents me from doing
> so here.
Why is that? Why would you bring up something as an argument and not clarify?
Aren't we allowed to judge this ourselves?
I really don't understand why you wouldn't consider searching the Notepad++ forums themselves about the subject and rely on a general site like Wikipedia. There really have been numerous posts about this in the past around here and who would know better than users of the very application?
I apologize for not consulting the forums here before checking Wikipedia. Excuse me for checking unverifiable alternative sources before deciding to broach this apparently controversial topic for discussion. I mean no harm. I agree that Notepad++ is a great program...it's just for me I'd like some clarity on the file sizes that can be created using color syntaxing.
By comparison, some proprietary software like Microsoft Excel explicitly tell users the limits of its iterations that come out every so often. One such limitation was the often heard rule you couldn't create complex nesting formulas because the limitation was 7. Now documentation explains this has been lifted to 32. It's nice to know stuff like this.
So in my opinion, it wouldn't hurt to have this information upfront in some documentation built into the program. That's all.
With or without color syntax?
> With or without color syntax?
In a *log* file? Whatever for?
I don't care about syntax highlighting, as I'm not going to *edit* the thing. I want a fast, preferably regex, search, to let me find the specific messages I'm reading the log file to see.
But I probably wouldn't use NP++ to open it to begin with. I'd use a port of the Unix less pager, which can open files of any size.
______
Dennis
This is the crux for me...color syntax capabilities on large files. I can *not* afford to code stuff in html or java in just plain black color text and I need color syntax capabilities when I code. Makes it easier for me to follow the trail when I need to edit. This is patently impossible in plain vanilla black on white. I gave up on EditPad Lite precisely because they held up the color syntax color coding as a carrot to whip out the credit card to get the Pro version. I didn't fall for it. I reasoned why purchase the Pro version when I could opt to get a good freeware editor that comes with color syntax coding? Granted...I know there are IDE environments that are really "up there" like UltraEditStudio, EmEditor (which won this year's best programming editor awards), etc. I may still whip out the cc to get one or the other...most prob UltraEditStudio because of the coding capabilities built in - although I'm weighing in on just getting UltraEdit only (price is half of the Studio version).
I queried Adobe's web site to see if I qualified for the Dreamweaver CS3 upgrade as I had Macromedia Dreamweaver 4.0 (which cost nearly 500 bucks back in the "good ol' days). Nope. I was locked out and have no intention of putting up with either the price or the draconian Adobe activation nightmare schemes. So I was delighted when I found Notepad++ and downloaded and tried it. Very nice. But after reading Wikipedia and the other site mentioning the size limit...I had questions that I thought I could ask here. So again we're going back and forth on this issue. However, I do agree the Wikipedia webpage on the editor limits and abilities have to be updated. Especially if word here proves Notepad++ can open file sizes larger than the 2.0 meg what with people announcing they can open 80 mg files. So it is eye opening to see informed information on this forum...but not so informative info on sites like Wikipedia. Then again, I usually "trust" Wikipedia as the info from there seems so dispassionate and official sounding.
The thread is OK, I just wonder why Wikipedia's information looks more convincing than the application itself? I mean, it's not a problem to try to open a large file in Notepad++ and see what will happen.
Anyway, this Wikipedia's article (or whatever it is) MUST be updated because it contains wrong information.
You are trolling.
It's easier to TRY OPENING A FILE OVER 2 MEG AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS than post multiple messages to a forum about an app which does not need to be installed to test (can be run from an extracted zip file)
Back under your bridge.
New post, provided anyone is listening. We use trace statements in our code and for 95% of the trace files notepad++ is great. I have a trace file that is 400MB and too large for notepad++ to open. The 280MB files did open and I was very happy with that. Does anyone know of a way to increase the size of what notepad++ can handle. Or is this issue being addressed
@guntherda: When I made the "file too large" patch (integrated since Notepad++ version 5.8) I tested that it was correctly loading a 512MB text file in less than a minute on my core2 laptop. This is without any plugin or lexer styling the file.
If you have a problem loading a 400MB file, try without plugins (rename the plugin folder) and restart Notepad++ without opening any other file before the large file. There is no memory defragmentation implemented in Notepad++ or Scintilla, and it tries to allocate memory for the file as a single contiguous buffer, thus restarting Notepad++ can help loading bigger files.
Thanks frboyer,
I can open the file if it is all I open. The issue is this: Search for all occurances in the file, select one of the occurances towards the end of the 400Mb file and notepad++ shuts down/blacks out/ disappears however you want to say it. I am not sure what direction to take at this point.
guntherda
I confirm there is a "bug" when double clicking an element in the result of "find all". I tried a 400MB file, and a search with 1500 hits, and it takes lot of time to go to a certain hit (when you double click on it) if that hit is far from current cursor position. That time should be about the same for any line, like "goto line" is. The problem seems to be how the selection is made, moving both ends of the selection one after the other instead of at the same time, and thus having a very large selection during that operation. If the selection is too big, Notepad++ shuts down as you told.
Until this is fixed, you can use "Go to…" (ctrl-g) to go to the correct line. If you double click on a search hit that is close to that line, it will not crash, so you can easily go from one hit to another if they are not too far from each other.
I have a better solution… Having a very large selection crashes Notepad++ because of smart highlighting. So, go to menu Settings/Preferences, tab MISC., and disable "Smart highlighting". You should now be able to double click your find result without crash.