If you search Wikipedia...there is a big comparison list of all current (supposedly current) list of WYSIWYG and text editors.
If the Wikipedia listing for Notepad++ is incorrect that it can't handle large file sizes...clearly this should be fixed. The question becomes...why hasn't this been addressed? Anybody can go to Wikipedia...myself and others looking at editors and type in "text editors" and see that comparison list.
I know Wikipedia can't be the final judge on everything nor should it be...but clearly if someone sees that listing for the first time (no matter how old it actually is) it does have an affect on the choices people end up making when choosing one editor over the other.
I believe the Notepad++ site should include a strong disclaimer for people visiting it to not take the Wikipedia entry at face value. Or at least the site should tell visitors not to believe the Wikipedia entry on the file size limit. Would this be a fair way of addressing the problem?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> If the Wikipedia listing for Notepad++ is incorrect that it can't handle large file
> sizes...clearly this should be fixed. The question becomes...why hasn't this been
> addressed? Anybody can go to Wikipedia...myself and others looking at editors and
> type in "text editors" and see that comparison list.
The applicable section is under Extra Features, where NP++ is listed as "No" for Large File Support. If you drill down into that definition, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_file_support
you discover the files they consider "Large Files" are over two *gigabytes* in size.
If you ever need to edit a file over 2GB in size, *and* have working syntax highlighting, it's arguable you are doing something very wrong. If you can't tell the difference between two megabytes and two gigabytes, you have another problem entirely. In either case, NP++ can't help you, and you need to look elsewhere.
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If you're saying Notepad++ can handle file sizes up to 2 gigabytes...then I'd have absolutely no problem creating files with Notepad++. Based on the careful reading of the links you posted...the Wikipedia entry seems to suggest the "LFS" limitation only applies to Notepad++ because it wasn't compiled to handle anything larger than 2 gig. This is my understanding of what you linked to. Is this analysis correct...or am I getting something wrong?
As of right now...it seems to suggest Notepad++ = FAT32. It also means Notepad++<>=NTFS file size capabilities. Right?
So to be absolutely clear...this means Notepad++ only supports FAT32 file sizes...which means "up to and including" 2 gigabytes. (whether or not this includes syntax highlighting I'll save for another posting). Is that the bottom line?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
No, I'm simply saying the Wikipedia entry does *not* say what you claimed it does. I suggested you go back and read it again.
I also suggest that you download NP++, install it, and test for *yourself* where the limits are instead of going on and on here. It's possible NP++ will meet your needs. It's possible you will need to get a different editor. Big deal. I don't think anyone here believes NP++ is the only editor you will ever need. I certainly don't, and I don't believe a "one size fits all" editor is *possible*. NP++ is one of several editors I keep around, and use depending upon what I'm doing.
I have no idea how large a file NP++ can edit and have syntax highlighting work. I've never tried to edit huge files with it, and I don't *plan* to. If I'm editing *code*, it's highly modular, and no single module will ever approach 2MB, let alone 2GB. If a module ever threatens to, it's evidence my code is poorly structured and needs to be refactored.
In general, I don't have to *edit* huge files at all. I just have to *look* at them, because they are things like large log files. For that, I use something like a port of the Unix "less" pager, which opens files of any size. I just need to open the file, view it, and search for particular strings that are relevant to the events I'm reviewing. I don't need to make changes, and I don't need to highlight syntax. NP++ would be the wrong tool for the job.
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> I believe the Notepad++ site should include a strong disclaimer for people visitin
> it to not take the Wikipedia entry at face value. Or at least the site should tell
> visitors not to believe the Wikipedia entry on the file size limit. Would this be
> a fair way of addressing the problem?
No, that would not be fair.
Notepad++ and its website are not responsible for what other sources write. If someone puts anything at the Wikipedia website, they should check it for themselves.
How may other sites are there saying something about Notepad++?
Should Notepad++ check all the statements and claims there?
Should Notepad++'s website say: "Do not believe ... or do not visit this website at all."?
How would anyone know of this warning if they get to the other site first?
Most important thing: I wouldn't use Wikipedia to find (out) any(thing about) Text Editors. There are more valuable resources elsewhere. Should we post a message about that, too, on all website also stating claims about text editors?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Most important thing: I wouldn't use Wikipedia to find (out) any(thing about)
> Text Editors. There are more valuable resources elsewhere. Should we post a
> message about that, too, on all website also stating claims about text editors?
Even if you wanted to, how would find them?
The problem is that Wikipedia is not merely the first place people go for information, it's also often the *only* one. And Wikipedia suffers from the "community created" vision, because what someone in the community posts isn't always correct. I use Wikipedia as a resource, but I don't assume it's true just because it's there. I check other sources as well.
The best source of information of Text Editors I'm aware of is http://TextEditors.org, another wiki devoted to that specific topic. It's striving to list *all* text editors, for *any* platform (with 814 listings thus far). But it normally doesn't try to provide deep information on any particular editor: it provides links to the information so you can find out for yourself.
______
Dennis
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If you search Wikipedia...there is a big comparison list of all current (supposedly current) list of WYSIWYG and text editors.
If the Wikipedia listing for Notepad++ is incorrect that it can't handle large file sizes...clearly this should be fixed. The question becomes...why hasn't this been addressed? Anybody can go to Wikipedia...myself and others looking at editors and type in "text editors" and see that comparison list.
I know Wikipedia can't be the final judge on everything nor should it be...but clearly if someone sees that listing for the first time (no matter how old it actually is) it does have an affect on the choices people end up making when choosing one editor over the other.
I believe the Notepad++ site should include a strong disclaimer for people visiting it to not take the Wikipedia entry at face value. Or at least the site should tell visitors not to believe the Wikipedia entry on the file size limit. Would this be a fair way of addressing the problem?
*sigh* I wish it were possible to edit posts here.
Make my pointer http://texteditors.org
*without* the trailing comma...
______
Dennis
> If the Wikipedia listing for Notepad++ is incorrect that it can't handle large file
> sizes...clearly this should be fixed. The question becomes...why hasn't this been
> addressed? Anybody can go to Wikipedia...myself and others looking at editors and
> type in "text editors" and see that comparison list.
You might wish to go back and re-read the Wikipedia entry, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_text_editors
The applicable section is under Extra Features, where NP++ is listed as "No" for Large File Support. If you drill down into that definition, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_file_support
you discover the files they consider "Large Files" are over two *gigabytes* in size.
If you ever need to edit a file over 2GB in size, *and* have working syntax highlighting, it's arguable you are doing something very wrong. If you can't tell the difference between two megabytes and two gigabytes, you have another problem entirely. In either case, NP++ can't help you, and you need to look elsewhere.
______
Dennis
If you're saying Notepad++ can handle file sizes up to 2 gigabytes...then I'd have absolutely no problem creating files with Notepad++. Based on the careful reading of the links you posted...the Wikipedia entry seems to suggest the "LFS" limitation only applies to Notepad++ because it wasn't compiled to handle anything larger than 2 gig. This is my understanding of what you linked to. Is this analysis correct...or am I getting something wrong?
As of right now...it seems to suggest Notepad++ = FAT32. It also means Notepad++<>=NTFS file size capabilities. Right?
So to be absolutely clear...this means Notepad++ only supports FAT32 file sizes...which means "up to and including" 2 gigabytes. (whether or not this includes syntax highlighting I'll save for another posting). Is that the bottom line?
No, I'm simply saying the Wikipedia entry does *not* say what you claimed it does. I suggested you go back and read it again.
I also suggest that you download NP++, install it, and test for *yourself* where the limits are instead of going on and on here. It's possible NP++ will meet your needs. It's possible you will need to get a different editor. Big deal. I don't think anyone here believes NP++ is the only editor you will ever need. I certainly don't, and I don't believe a "one size fits all" editor is *possible*. NP++ is one of several editors I keep around, and use depending upon what I'm doing.
I have no idea how large a file NP++ can edit and have syntax highlighting work. I've never tried to edit huge files with it, and I don't *plan* to. If I'm editing *code*, it's highly modular, and no single module will ever approach 2MB, let alone 2GB. If a module ever threatens to, it's evidence my code is poorly structured and needs to be refactored.
In general, I don't have to *edit* huge files at all. I just have to *look* at them, because they are things like large log files. For that, I use something like a port of the Unix "less" pager, which opens files of any size. I just need to open the file, view it, and search for particular strings that are relevant to the events I'm reviewing. I don't need to make changes, and I don't need to highlight syntax. NP++ would be the wrong tool for the job.
______
Dennis
> I believe the Notepad++ site should include a strong disclaimer for people visitin
> it to not take the Wikipedia entry at face value. Or at least the site should tell
> visitors not to believe the Wikipedia entry on the file size limit. Would this be
> a fair way of addressing the problem?
No, that would not be fair.
Notepad++ and its website are not responsible for what other sources write. If someone puts anything at the Wikipedia website, they should check it for themselves.
How may other sites are there saying something about Notepad++?
Should Notepad++ check all the statements and claims there?
Should Notepad++'s website say: "Do not believe ... or do not visit this website at all."?
How would anyone know of this warning if they get to the other site first?
Most important thing: I wouldn't use Wikipedia to find (out) any(thing about) Text Editors. There are more valuable resources elsewhere. Should we post a message about that, too, on all website also stating claims about text editors?
> Most important thing: I wouldn't use Wikipedia to find (out) any(thing about)
> Text Editors. There are more valuable resources elsewhere. Should we post a
> message about that, too, on all website also stating claims about text editors?
Even if you wanted to, how would find them?
The problem is that Wikipedia is not merely the first place people go for information, it's also often the *only* one. And Wikipedia suffers from the "community created" vision, because what someone in the community posts isn't always correct. I use Wikipedia as a resource, but I don't assume it's true just because it's there. I check other sources as well.
The best source of information of Text Editors I'm aware of is http://TextEditors.org, another wiki devoted to that specific topic. It's striving to list *all* text editors, for *any* platform (with 814 listings thus far). But it normally doesn't try to provide deep information on any particular editor: it provides links to the information so you can find out for yourself.
______
Dennis