You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> on 2017/06/19 03:18:45 UTC
Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box
[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-7 to track
this improvement.
Indeed, I believe using the existing "language files" or "word files" from
other editors and a little NetBeans work we could provide basic editor
features for a whole range of file types.
For example, we would provide Groovy syntax highlighting out of the box and
users would get the full experience by installing the extra plugins.
We could even introduce a mechanism to promote to users the full plugins
(from the Plugin Portal, etc) once they start editing given file types.
--emi
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
wrote:
> I like the Idea. It will make stuff easier.
>
> Another Option and I think this would be a great enhancement to simple add
> a new language (maybe only Syntax highlighting to the Editor) is a similar
> functionality as in Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text or Notepad++.
> They uses languages files for syntax highlighting. Of Course they are
> Definition files like grammar and so on, but simpler. Not with the
> generating stuff for JavaCC or ANTLR.
>
> Here are the files which are used for Notepad++
> http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php?title=User_
> Defined_Language_Files
>
> Here for Sublime Text: http://docs.sublimetext.info/
> en/latest/extensibility/syntaxdefs.html
>
> Here for Visual Studio Code: https://code.visualstudio.com/
> docs/extensionAPI/language-support (They uses textmate files)
>
> Here for Ultraedit: http://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.
> html#wordfiles
>
> So this will be very handy to have the same Syntax from one of them above
> to use alredy defined files from other Editors (maybe where it has the most
> files) to bring a new language support to NetBeans, which is not supported.
> This will be very simple to have this. More work for the implementation
> first but, download such file in a specific Folder in NetBeans and NetBeans
> will parse e.g. TCL, C#, F# whatever.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: Peter Blemel
> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 18:25
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Introductory Email
>
> In the context of this discussion the concept is a NetBeans editor module
> generator, in which we auto-code all (or as much as we can) of the
> supporting files necessary to create a NetBeans editor plugin for the
> users' new language. In that context additional jars shouldn't' be an
> issue, but of course if we're going to go to all of that time and effort
> then it should be able to emit code for other purposes.
>
>
> With that in mind I have other applications that are probably already
> suffering from bit rot. I haven't had to write a grammar in quite a while,
> and was unfamiliar with ANTLR so I had to do some reading. After browsing
> a few web sites I like that ANTLRs output looks cleaner, can target
> multiple languages, and that there appear to be significantly more (and
> more robust) tools already available. I found an old JavaCC branch
> supporting C/C++ targets but it doesn't appear to be supported. I didn't
> look into if the other ANTLR target languages require additional libraries,
> or had time to explore how much Netbeans support is already available.
>
>
> I hope to find time this summer to try writing a new parser (maybe just a
> toy), but so far in general ANTLR appears to be a better choice if we're
> going to develop an editor generator.
>
>
> Peter
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:52 AM
>
> I tend to agree but a difference that can be important depending on
> the context is that JavaCC doesn't have any external runtime
> dependencies, whereas ANTLR requires a few jars.
>
> -Bertrand
>
>
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out
ofthebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
For me sounds a bit like a meta language which will understandable from everyone. It sounds like BPML or smth like that, where the diagram can also generates Code. Only guessing.
Von: Peter Blemel
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 18:45
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out ofthebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
In terms of NetBeans being an IDE for editing text files, I have mostly been thinking about editors for languages like mine that aren't in the mainstream, so the artifacts that you're referring to don't typically don't exist. This is what I mean when I say that the user community is probably small. I do think that whatever we come up with should be scalable to larger and more mature languages, and being able to re-use artifacts from other editors will increase the potential user community.
The more that I think about this thread, the more I realize that I'm not personally especially interested in just re-inventing the capabilities of other IDEs. I am thinking more in terms of NetBeans as a platform for editor innovation, and beginning to think more along the lines of describing the features of a language instead of how to create programs written in the language. I am thinking about how to make it easy for subject matter experts (as opposed to developers) to create and edit programs without writing any code to the extent possible. This abstraction of the idea of an editor is a different thing, but would allow me to describe my grammar in a way that SMEs and every day users can use it, because they aren't developers.
We may be talking about two different kinds of editor generators. One to create editors that recreate other editors, and one that generates a different kind of editor.
Peter
________________________________
From: Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:23 AM
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Subject: AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
The Problem is, what I think, to find or create such files by my self. I searched for months to find a C# grammar file for JavaCC. There isn’t so I used the Java and changed some stuff. Very error related because I don’t know much about grammar stuff.
Now I will rewrite my Plugin to ANTLR, because I found a proper C#.g4 file and will have a look whether it is better or not, but I think it is. So if you want to implement Haskell or F# to NB you need those files too and I think, to use a similar functionality what other IDEs/Editors alredas have would be better, because such user defined files are already there, look into the list for NotePad++: http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php/User_Defined_Language_Files sor UltraEdit: https://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.html
Not to missunderstand here. We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans but we should use similar technics like other IDEs/Editors already do. So we can use the great list of user defined files from other IDEs/Editors.
Von: Peter Blemel
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:13
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
Peter
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
> We may be talking about two different kinds of editor generators. One to create editors that recreate other editors, and one that generates a different kind of editor.
I did start a separate thread specifically to talk about Chris'
suggestion. What you are talking about seems a bit different indeed.
--emi
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Peter Blemel <pb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In terms of NetBeans being an IDE for editing text files, I have mostly been thinking about editors for languages like mine that aren't in the mainstream, so the artifacts that you're referring to don't typically don't exist. This is what I mean when I say that the user community is probably small. I do think that whatever we come up with should be scalable to larger and more mature languages, and being able to re-use artifacts from other editors will increase the potential user community.
>
>
> The more that I think about this thread, the more I realize that I'm not personally especially interested in just re-inventing the capabilities of other IDEs. I am thinking more in terms of NetBeans as a platform for editor innovation, and beginning to think more along the lines of describing the features of a language instead of how to create programs written in the language. I am thinking about how to make it easy for subject matter experts (as opposed to developers) to create and edit programs without writing any code to the extent possible. This abstraction of the idea of an editor is a different thing, but would allow me to describe my grammar in a way that SMEs and every day users can use it, because they aren't developers.
>
>
> We may be talking about two different kinds of editor generators. One to create editors that recreate other editors, and one that generates a different kind of editor.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:23 AM
> To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
>
> The Problem is, what I think, to find or create such files by my self. I searched for months to find a C# grammar file for JavaCC. There isn’t so I used the Java and changed some stuff. Very error related because I don’t know much about grammar stuff.
>
> Now I will rewrite my Plugin to ANTLR, because I found a proper C#.g4 file and will have a look whether it is better or not, but I think it is. So if you want to implement Haskell or F# to NB you need those files too and I think, to use a similar functionality what other IDEs/Editors alredas have would be better, because such user defined files are already there, look into the list for NotePad++: http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php/User_Defined_Language_Files sor UltraEdit: https://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.html
>
> Not to missunderstand here. We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans but we should use similar technics like other IDEs/Editors already do. So we can use the great list of user defined files from other IDEs/Editors.
>
>
> Von: Peter Blemel
> Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:13
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
>
> I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
>
> When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
>
> Peter
>
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Peter Blemel <pb...@hotmail.com>.
In terms of NetBeans being an IDE for editing text files, I have mostly been thinking about editors for languages like mine that aren't in the mainstream, so the artifacts that you're referring to don't typically don't exist. This is what I mean when I say that the user community is probably small. I do think that whatever we come up with should be scalable to larger and more mature languages, and being able to re-use artifacts from other editors will increase the potential user community.
The more that I think about this thread, the more I realize that I'm not personally especially interested in just re-inventing the capabilities of other IDEs. I am thinking more in terms of NetBeans as a platform for editor innovation, and beginning to think more along the lines of describing the features of a language instead of how to create programs written in the language. I am thinking about how to make it easy for subject matter experts (as opposed to developers) to create and edit programs without writing any code to the extent possible. This abstraction of the idea of an editor is a different thing, but would allow me to describe my grammar in a way that SMEs and every day users can use it, because they aren't developers.
We may be talking about two different kinds of editor generators. One to create editors that recreate other editors, and one that generates a different kind of editor.
Peter
________________________________
From: Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:23 AM
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Subject: AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
The Problem is, what I think, to find or create such files by my self. I searched for months to find a C# grammar file for JavaCC. There isn’t so I used the Java and changed some stuff. Very error related because I don’t know much about grammar stuff.
Now I will rewrite my Plugin to ANTLR, because I found a proper C#.g4 file and will have a look whether it is better or not, but I think it is. So if you want to implement Haskell or F# to NB you need those files too and I think, to use a similar functionality what other IDEs/Editors alredas have would be better, because such user defined files are already there, look into the list for NotePad++: http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php/User_Defined_Language_Files sor UltraEdit: https://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.html
Not to missunderstand here. We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans but we should use similar technics like other IDEs/Editors already do. So we can use the great list of user defined files from other IDEs/Editors.
Von: Peter Blemel
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:13
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
Peter
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I do remember Schliemann from long ago...
Although this is not about bringing back .NBS files as much as
integrating what already is out there ("word files" and such), even if
it doesn't cover all the NetBeans features.
> We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans
This is just a basic way to allowing text editing.
Note that NetBeans is an *IDE* that also has an editor. People
generally expect more advanced features from an IDE than basic syntax
highlighting. An IDE generally does some *semantic* and project-wide
analysis.
But if I do use NetBeans for a Java project, it might be nice if it
has some basic Groovy support, although I would have to install the
proper Groovy plugins for heavy work.
--emi
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net> wrote:
> The Problem is, what I think, to find or create such files by my self. I searched for months to find a C# grammar file for JavaCC. There isn’t so I used the Java and changed some stuff. Very error related because I don’t know much about grammar stuff.
>
> Now I will rewrite my Plugin to ANTLR, because I found a proper C#.g4 file and will have a look whether it is better or not, but I think it is. So if you want to implement Haskell or F# to NB you need those files too and I think, to use a similar functionality what other IDEs/Editors alredas have would be better, because such user defined files are already there, look into the list for NotePad++: http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php/User_Defined_Language_Files sor UltraEdit: https://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.html
>
> Not to missunderstand here. We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans but we should use similar technics like other IDEs/Editors already do. So we can use the great list of user defined files from other IDEs/Editors.
>
>
> Von: Peter Blemel
> Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:13
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
>
>
> I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
>
>
> When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:00 AM
> To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
>
> Who can remember Schliemann Project in NetBeans?
>
> Sven
>
> Am 19.06.2017 1:08 nachm. schrieb "Emilian Bold" <em...@gmail.com>:
>
>> In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does
>> all the heavy lifting.
>>
>> But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the
>> first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case
>> we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
>>
>> --emi
>>
>> Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
>>
>> > LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to
>> it
>> > (through input/output stream mostly).
>> > From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
>> > about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
>> > The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
>> > languages without even having to support them while you would have to
>> > support every file you are providing.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > Emmanuel Hugonnet
>> > http://www.ehsavoie.com
> Java in the Alps - ehsavoie.com<http://www.ehsavoie.com/>
> www.ehsavoie.com
> On the 16th of October was hold the first NetBeans Day event in France thanks to Geertjan Wielenga , Nebrass Lamouchi (@NebrassLamouchi) and Paul Bernardi from ...
>
>
>> > http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
> ehsavoie (@ehsavoie) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ehsavoie>
> twitter.com
> The latest Tweets from ehsavoie (@ehsavoie). WildFly dev, AlpesJUG leader, NetBeans Dream team member. Grenoble, France
>
>
>>
>
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
The Problem is, what I think, to find or create such files by my self. I searched for months to find a C# grammar file for JavaCC. There isn’t so I used the Java and changed some stuff. Very error related because I don’t know much about grammar stuff.
Now I will rewrite my Plugin to ANTLR, because I found a proper C#.g4 file and will have a look whether it is better or not, but I think it is. So if you want to implement Haskell or F# to NB you need those files too and I think, to use a similar functionality what other IDEs/Editors alredas have would be better, because such user defined files are already there, look into the list for NotePad++: http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php/User_Defined_Language_Files sor UltraEdit: https://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.html
Not to missunderstand here. We really need such simpler method to bring a new language to NetBeans but we should use similar technics like other IDEs/Editors already do. So we can use the great list of user defined files from other IDEs/Editors.
Von: Peter Blemel
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:13
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
Peter
________________________________
From: Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:00 AM
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Who can remember Schliemann Project in NetBeans?
Sven
Am 19.06.2017 1:08 nachm. schrieb "Emilian Bold" <em...@gmail.com>:
> In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does
> all the heavy lifting.
>
> But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the
> first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case
> we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
>
> --emi
>
> Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
>
> > LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to
> it
> > (through input/output stream mostly).
> > From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
> > about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
> > The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
> > languages without even having to support them while you would have to
> > support every file you are providing.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Emmanuel Hugonnet
> > http://www.ehsavoie.com
Java in the Alps - ehsavoie.com<http://www.ehsavoie.com/>
www.ehsavoie.com
On the 16th of October was hold the first NetBeans Day event in France thanks to Geertjan Wielenga , Nebrass Lamouchi (@NebrassLamouchi) and Paul Bernardi from ...
> > http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
ehsavoie (@ehsavoie) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ehsavoie>
twitter.com
The latest Tweets from ehsavoie (@ehsavoie). WildFly dev, AlpesJUG leader, NetBeans Dream team member. Grenoble, France
>
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Peter Blemel <pb...@hotmail.com>.
I do. I wrote both of my editors in Schliemann, and then re-wrote them when it was abandoned. There was some discussion at the time about why it was unsupportable, or perhaps just obsolete but I don't remember the details. However, that experience is part of why I am proposing an "editor generator" instead of another scripting language.
When developing a JavaCC or ANTLR grammar most tools require you to write the grammar first, in text, and then provide tools for visual representation. As a software developer I have found this process to be tedious and error prone, and a lot of important meta data is lost. I propose to reverse the process, using a data model that can be manipulated by visual editing tools to model the language (and editor features), from which code can be generated and maintained. Additional plugins could be written that do other things with the model.
Peter
________________________________
From: Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:00 AM
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Who can remember Schliemann Project in NetBeans?
Sven
Am 19.06.2017 1:08 nachm. schrieb "Emilian Bold" <em...@gmail.com>:
> In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does
> all the heavy lifting.
>
> But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the
> first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case
> we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
>
> --emi
>
> Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
>
> > LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to
> it
> > (through input/output stream mostly).
> > From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
> > about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
> > The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
> > languages without even having to support them while you would have to
> > support every file you are providing.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Emmanuel Hugonnet
> > http://www.ehsavoie.com
Java in the Alps - ehsavoie.com<http://www.ehsavoie.com/>
www.ehsavoie.com
On the 16th of October was hold the first NetBeans Day event in France thanks to Geertjan Wielenga , Nebrass Lamouchi (@NebrassLamouchi) and Paul Bernardi from ...
> > http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
ehsavoie (@ehsavoie) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ehsavoie>
twitter.com
The latest Tweets from ehsavoie (@ehsavoie). WildFly dev, AlpesJUG leader, NetBeans Dream team member. Grenoble, France
>
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:06 PM Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
wrote:
> But unfortunately it was not implemented, right?
>
Implemented, deprecated and removed IIRC!
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
Nice, I scanned the document and it describes exact that what I requested How and why: http://wiki.netbeans.org/Schliemann
And here is a proposal how: http://wiki.netbeans.org/SchliemannNBSLanguageDescription
But unfortunately it was not implemented, right? I think to create a new file Format doesn’t make sense, I prefer to use that what we have in the document + based on the files from other IDEs, because it is already there. No need to create a new Format for this.
Von: Sven Reimers
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 17:00
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Who can remember Schliemann Project in NetBeans?
Sven
Am 19.06.2017 1:08 nachm. schrieb "Emilian Bold" <em...@gmail.com>:
> In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does
> all the heavy lifting.
>
> But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the
> first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case
> we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
>
> --emi
>
> Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
>
> > LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to
> it
> > (through input/output stream mostly).
> > From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
> > about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
> > The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
> > languages without even having to support them while you would have to
> > support every file you are providing.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Emmanuel Hugonnet
> > http://www.ehsavoie.com
> > http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
>
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>.
Who can remember Schliemann Project in NetBeans?
Sven
Am 19.06.2017 1:08 nachm. schrieb "Emilian Bold" <em...@gmail.com>:
> In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does
> all the heavy lifting.
>
> But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the
> first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case
> we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
>
> --emi
>
> Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
>
> > LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to
> it
> > (through input/output stream mostly).
> > From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
> > about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
> > The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
> > languages without even having to support them while you would have to
> > support every file you are providing.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Emmanuel Hugonnet
> > http://www.ehsavoie.com
> > http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
>
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
In theory adding LSP support should be just as easy since the server does all the heavy lifting.
But if we want to have for example Erlang syntax highlighting, etc. in the first case we just add another 10kb configuration file. In the second case we have to find and ship an Erlang LSP server.
--emi
Pe 19 iun. 2017, la 12:13, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> a scris:
> LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to it
> (through input/output stream mostly).
> From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
> about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
> The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
> languages without even having to support them while you would have to
> support every file you are providing.
>
>
> ----------
> Emmanuel Hugonnet
> http://www.ehsavoie.com
> http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com>.
LSP is an API so you would 'only' have to start a process and connect to it
(through input/output stream mostly).
From my point of view a LSP editor is the generic editor you are talking
about, and the LSP server is the file you are loading from.
The advantage is that you have a quick more advanced support of a lot of
languages without even having to support them while you would have to
support every file you are providing.
----------
Emmanuel Hugonnet
http://www.ehsavoie.com
http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
I don't believe so.
For simple editors (syntax highlighting, braces matching, keywords
completion) we can write easily a generic editor that loads the
keywords from a definition file that's already available on the links
mentioned.
LSP makes sense for full-blown support (eg. Typescript) but then we
also need (to include) a server.
--emi
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM, ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't Language Server Protocol the simpliest way to get that ?
>
> ----------
> Emmanuel Hugonnet
> http://www.ehsavoie.com
> http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
For the LSP you Need the Server which will provide the language, but those files are already there for years.
Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
Von: ehsavoie
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 09:44
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Isn't Language Server Protocol the simpliest way to get that ?
----------
Emmanuel Hugonnet
http://www.ehsavoie.com
http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of
thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
I think LSP can be an other Option too.
Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
Von: ehsavoie
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 09:44
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of thebox[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Isn't Language Server Protocol the simpliest way to get that ?
----------
Emmanuel Hugonnet
http://www.ehsavoie.com
http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
Re: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by ehsavoie <em...@gmail.com>.
Isn't Language Server Protocol the simpliest way to get that ?
----------
Emmanuel Hugonnet
http://www.ehsavoie.com
http://twitter.com/ehsavoie
AW: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the
box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
Of Course, thx for the ticket That will help to see the Progress 😊
I hat some ideas in my mind, but I think they didn’t worked out. Atm I don’t know much about lexer/Parser stuff. Only used JavaCC and ANTLR to generate stuff, bringing Syntax highlighting for C# to netbeans, works ok but not perfect.
Regards
Chris
Von: Emilian Bold
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 05:19
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: Re: AW: Introductory Email]
I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-7 to track
this improvement.
Indeed, I believe using the existing "language files" or "word files" from
other editors and a little NetBeans work we could provide basic editor
features for a whole range of file types.
For example, we would provide Groovy syntax highlighting out of the box and
users would get the full experience by installing the extra plugins.
We could even introduce a mechanism to promote to users the full plugins
(from the Plugin Portal, etc) once they start editing given file types.
--emi
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
wrote:
> I like the Idea. It will make stuff easier.
>
> Another Option and I think this would be a great enhancement to simple add
> a new language (maybe only Syntax highlighting to the Editor) is a similar
> functionality as in Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text or Notepad++.
> They uses languages files for syntax highlighting. Of Course they are
> Definition files like grammar and so on, but simpler. Not with the
> generating stuff for JavaCC or ANTLR.
>
> Here are the files which are used for Notepad++
> http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php?title=User_
> Defined_Language_Files
>
> Here for Sublime Text: http://docs.sublimetext.info/
> en/latest/extensibility/syntaxdefs.html
>
> Here for Visual Studio Code: https://code.visualstudio.com/
> docs/extensionAPI/language-support (They uses textmate files)
>
> Here for Ultraedit: http://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.
> html#wordfiles
>
> So this will be very handy to have the same Syntax from one of them above
> to use alredy defined files from other Editors (maybe where it has the most
> files) to bring a new language support to NetBeans, which is not supported.
> This will be very simple to have this. More work for the implementation
> first but, download such file in a specific Folder in NetBeans and NetBeans
> will parse e.g. TCL, C#, F# whatever.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: Peter Blemel
> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 18:25
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Introductory Email
>
> In the context of this discussion the concept is a NetBeans editor module
> generator, in which we auto-code all (or as much as we can) of the
> supporting files necessary to create a NetBeans editor plugin for the
> users' new language. In that context additional jars shouldn't' be an
> issue, but of course if we're going to go to all of that time and effort
> then it should be able to emit code for other purposes.
>
>
> With that in mind I have other applications that are probably already
> suffering from bit rot. I haven't had to write a grammar in quite a while,
> and was unfamiliar with ANTLR so I had to do some reading. After browsing
> a few web sites I like that ANTLRs output looks cleaner, can target
> multiple languages, and that there appear to be significantly more (and
> more robust) tools already available. I found an old JavaCC branch
> supporting C/C++ targets but it doesn't appear to be supported. I didn't
> look into if the other ANTLR target languages require additional libraries,
> or had time to explore how much Netbeans support is already available.
>
>
> I hope to find time this summer to try writing a new parser (maybe just a
> toy), but so far in general ANTLR appears to be a better choice if we're
> going to develop an editor generator.
>
>
> Peter
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:52 AM
>
> I tend to agree but a difference that can be important depending on
> the context is that JavaCC doesn't have any external runtime
> dependencies, whereas ANTLR requires a few jars.
>
> -Bertrand
>
>