I think somebody was developing a good simple IDE a while ago and I just wanted to see if it was done.

The premise was that for a simple IDE the following must be true:
(because not only is it simple, it must be so powerful too)
-Programmed in Assembly or C to keep filesize down, and perhaps packed /w UPX.
-Syntax highlighting would be along the lines of that of Visual C++'s 'C' highlighting.
+Keywords would be green (i think) #00FF00
+operators would be blue (i think, these could be switched) #0000FF
-There would be a status bar including the following:
+column number
+line number
+number of lines
+maybe filesize
-The tool could handle large filesizes
-Also could handle unicode and ascii file saving, also maybe 7bit saving (i'm not entirely sure what that is)
-syntax would be toggleable so it could be used for html, syntax could maybe be a file, but asm syntax would be hard coded

OK, while it may seem complicated it really just has to be a mix of the XP notepad and visual C++ syntax style.
It's the sort of thing you put on a little floppy for school ;)
Posted on 2002-08-09 18:27:53 by matthew
Also could handle unicode and ascii file saving, also maybe 7bit saving (i'm not entirely sure what that is)

I think it's this:

    [*]Unicode uses two bytes per char, used by chinese, japanese, korean, and so forth (thus more than 256 or 128 chars)
    [*]ASCII 8-bits (thus one bute per char), the usual windows/dos format. With this you can have a maximum of 256 chars (0 through FFh)
    [*]7-bit (it might even be called 7-bit ASCII), uses 7-bit per char, giving an maximum of 7Fh (128) chars. I think IBM has setup an standard for these 128 first chars (used by above too, IIRC). So the difference between this and above is that above has some more chars to play with, it's the extended pice (>128 and <256) that seems to lack any direct standard.

    I'm not 100% sure either what it is but it makes some sence to me (at least the ASCII and 7-bit part). But the unicode part is abit fuzzy to me I must admit.
Posted on 2002-08-09 18:54:30 by scientica
I imagine 7bit is some bizzare idea someone got one day which they thought was great because it made for a 12.5% saving on file sizes.
Posted on 2002-08-09 19:12:15 by Eóin
I bet that was much when Mr. B. Gates said that 640kB (IIRC) should be enough for every one......

...but how on earth would that be possible when M$ WinDOS apprears to be increasing by (last_version_size) ^ (last_version_size * BILLS__current_favorite_number)
Posted on 2002-08-09 19:17:13 by scientica
I actually thought of the 7-bit idea myself a long time ago.
I thought -
"Hey! For simple text we don't need all these control characters, or all this other junk!"

But of course, when you knock off 1 bit you cut the amount of characters you get in half. So my idea turned into an almost useless 1-bit saving mechanism. MY friend thought I was insane and I gave it up.. I believe it is 2600 that won't let you submit mail to them unless it is in the 7-bit format but I may be thinking of someone else, I reallyu don't think they'd care; i must be thinking of some group i encountered in the last week (virus, cracking, i dunno but those are the kind of people who care about 1-bit).
Posted on 2002-08-09 19:57:40 by matthew
No,no, ppl would probably laugh and point to the 2600^2^4^8 ZHz CPU super duper scalabillity (U,V,Z,X,G,... pipes), that's how it will be if things continue the way it goeas to day. (total waist of resources, both in real life and in protected mode --- , but we can do something about it, simplly by writing faster and smaller apps and letting ppl know that we do it)

Some one said: every man counts
I say: every man counts and every bit counts!

:stupid: (am I?)
Posted on 2002-08-09 20:08:58 by scientica
What are you suggesting scientica??

That 7-bit ascii is good or bad?

"Every bit count" in regards to "asm optimised".

7-bit ascii can only save a VERY small amount of space, but 8bit ascii would be
soo much faster. Not to say 32bit chars. (oh yeah, lets bring in unicode32)
Posted on 2002-08-09 23:38:09 by assant
>What are you suggesting scientica??
For things that requires lot of different symbols (eg scientific/mathematical proofs/formulas) could use a wider char set then if you only sending a text message. Thus choosing the size of the boots to fit your/mine feets.

>That 7-bit ascii is good or bad?
If you would use a text (only) message system (just digits and letters (eg upper case or lowercase only) STOP like old styled fassioned telegrams STOP), in that case you might just need 6-bits (64 possible chars).
But when it comes to speed I think it's neglectable if the text string is beeing formated as you type (sine you probably think and edit a message before you send it ).

>"Every bit count" in regards to "asm optimised".
alter one bit, and you migth end up with trouble (or a solution, if you made a typO)

>7-bit ascii can only save a VERY small amount of space, but 8bit ascii would be
>soo much faster. Not to say 32bit chars. (oh yeah, lets bring in unicode32)
Well, as we say here in sweden sometime "m?nga b?ckar sm?..." ("many small rivers..." ... becomes a large river), let's say a moders telegram system was to be brought online, and people would use it (to send small fast and cheap messages). Then let's say one million people would use it and send a message (with eg 64 chars), that would mean 64-bits saving per message, 64-bits*1 Mega = 64 Mega-bits. But the actual bit-saving might be half since there must also be information about who will recive the message and possible minimum package size.
32-bit unicode, why not, but then there must be a standard that is used, or else we will end up with 4.294.967.295 different "standards", just like the "high-bit-chars" in the 8-bit ASCII....
Posted on 2002-08-10 07:26:30 by scientica