text editor suggestion?

[mystilleef]

http://scribes.sourceforge.net/

Flash Demo: http://scribes.sourceforge.net/snippets.htm

GIF Demo: http://www.minds.may.ie/~dez/images/blog/scribes.html

Scribes is simple, slim, sleek and fast. It has no learning curve and
conveys a no nonsense approach to text editing. You won't need to edit
configuration files in lisp, read manuals or sacrifice your unborn
grand daugther to the geek goddesses. It's also written in Python. Some
people have described it as TextMate for Linux.

Version 0.3 will be released in few days and will feature

- remote editing
- a document browser to show all files opened by the editor
- recent files menu
- more steriods...


John Salerno wrote:
> Ok, I know it's been asked a million times, but I have a more specific
> question so hopefully this won't be just the same old post. I've tried a
> few different editors, and I really like UltraEdit, but it's
> Windows-only and I'm working more on Linux nowadays.
>
> Here are my criteria:
>
> 1. syntax highlighting (highly customizable)
> 2. auto/smart indenting
> 3. ability to run script
> 4. light-weight text editor, not an IDE
> 5. cross-platform (not really necessary, but nice)
>
> That's pretty much all I need. It's nice when you can customize a bunch
> of other stuff too, but those are the most important.
>
> I've tried vim, but I really don't feel like taking the time to learn
> how to use it, given that I just like to casually program (not to
> mention that I prefer to use the mouse when navigating a document
> sometimes).
>
> I also just started using Scite, and I really like it, except I find its
> syntax highlighting to be very inflexible. You aren't able to define
> your own groups of words -- you have to use what's given, basically. One
> thing I like about UltraEdit is that you simply define as many groups of
> keywords as you want and then assign a style to each one. Scite has a
> very strange and rigid method of highlighting.
>
> So hopefully some of you might have some suggestions. My requirements
> are minimal, but I'm still not happy with the syntax highlighting I'm
> seeing in a lot of editors out there.