1. 17
  1.  

  2. 7

    I was an Amiga guy for many years, and ED was the first “real” text editor I ever used. Though I’ve been pretty much exclusively a *nix user since the late 90’s, I still do a lot of hobbyist work on the Amiga.

    tine is my attempt to bring ED into the modern world, and let me use my first text editor on modern systems. It’s not 100% ready yet, but it’s stable enough to have been my daily driver for a while now.

    1. 4

      Although I only used it regularly for a little while, I appreciated your port of Plan 9’s sam editor to modern Unix, and learning about the mindset it encouraged.

      Does Amiga ED have lessons to teach, too? Or is it just a conveniently-familiar UI for basic text-editing? Can you post a screenshot?

      1. 2

        Although I only used it regularly for a little while, I appreciated your port of Plan 9’s sam editor to modern Unix, and learning about the mindset it encouraged.

        Thank you. I do love text editors. :) My work environment has changed over the last few years and I often find myself without a real mouse, so my sam usage has waned. I’ll eventually get it more usable without a mouse…though then it really wouldn’t be sam anymore.

        Does Amiga ED have lessons to teach, too? Or is it just a conveniently-familiar UI for basic text-editing? Can you post a screenshot?

        I don’t think ED really has any lessons to teach other than perhaps as a historical “the way it could’ve been” kinda thing. ED’s roughly equivalent in power to vi circa 1976: a display editor with a limited command language (very roughly equivalent; vi had regexes, for example). ED’s way of handling tabs and whitespace is much closer to that of a typewriter or some mainframe editors, which might be interesting if you’ve never used those things.

        As for the UI, ED doesn’t have much of one. tine has a status line, which is more than ED ever did, so there’s at least a little UI there. :)

      2. 2

        I’ve never seen ED. Can you post some shots? I am curious about how it looks. :-)

        1. 3

          ED doesn’t really have much of a user interface. Unlike tine, it doesn’t even have a status line.

          Also, despite the Amiga having a GUI, ED is purely a console application (as it was under TRIPOS), so any window you see is purely the hosting shell or console device. The Amiga had what was called the console device (CON:), and opening a path into the device would open a new console window on the screen. For example

          ED WINDOW CON:10/10/100/100/MyEdWindow
          

          would open a new console window at (10,10) of size 100x100, titled “MyEdWindow” and ED would use that window. You could also use * as the window specification:

          ED WINDOW *
          

          which would cause ED to use the same shell window it was launched from. Another option was AUX:, which would cause ED to use the serial port as its console.

          The versions of ED shipped with AmigaDOS 2.x and later did allow you to dynamically add menus via the SI (Set Item) and EM (Enable Menus) commands, with the menu selections being bound to ED extended commands. Those menus were drawn by the operating system, but as far as ED was concerned, you were just sending it extended commands.

          In the versions released with AmigaDOS 2.x and later, ED also had an ARexx port. This meant that you could write ARexx scripts that would manipulate ED sessions (by sending them extended commands as strings). ARexx was really one of the best features of the Amiga environment: you could very easily tie together applications from multiple vendors via complex ARexx scripts and it would just work happily. It was also nice having a de facto standard macro language for any given application (though some programs did also include their own macro language).

          1. 2

            I was curious as well, since I never really got time on the Amiga (which was a shame; I’ve looked at things like AROS before, but only in a facile way, same with AtariST). I did find the following tho, which gives a pretty good overview as to the workings:

            Screenshots seem to be mainly of ARexx terminals or MicroEMACS, neither of which are useful to see how Amiga ED worked.

            Incidentally, I’ve always wanted to work more with TRIPOS, which I know heavily influenced AmigaDOS.

            edit: AmigaLove apparently has a screenshot buried in a forum.

            1. 2

              Incidentally, I’ve always wanted to work more with TRIPOS, which I know heavily influenced AmigaDOS.

              AmigaDOS basically was TRIPOS. The original Amiga operating system wasn’t going to be ready for launch, and so MetaComCo (who wrote ED and a host of other tools) was hired to port TRIPOS to the Amiga, where it formed the DOS portion of the operating system.

              TRIPOS was written in BCPL, and when programming for the Amiga you had to be aware of the different alignment requirements of the AmigaDOS subsystem (everything in BCPL had to be double-word aligned). IIRC you also had to do some string conversion magic when dealing with AmigaDOS as it used Pascal-style length-prefixed strings but the rest of the system used C-style strings. I could be misremembering though.

              By the time of AmigaOS 2.x, AmigaDOS had been rewritten in C but still had the funky alignment requirements for compatibility purposes.

              If you’re interested in TRIPOS, you can run it today via Martin Richards’s Cintpos system. Note that it does not include ED, which was a separate product from MetaComCo.

              1. 2

                Yes! Cintpos is so cool; I haven’t run it in anger before, but I’ve definitely seen it (we had a system that originated on a TRIPOS-alike way back when I worked in physics publishing)

              2. 2

                edit: AmigaLove apparently has a screenshot buried in a forum.

                From TFA: “I never use that piece of junk built in editor.”

                :(