Author Topic: Thin SlickEdit  (Read 7985 times)

Dan112123

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Hero Points: 2
Thin SlickEdit
« on: February 29, 2008, 05:40:05 pm »
Has anyone does any work on thinning SlickEdit? As it stands right now, it is very bloated and huge. I'm sure if I'm only doing C++/C# programming I do not need 90% of what's there. Moreover SourceInsight's full installation is only 3.8Mb and it does almost everything that SE does except it can't load huge files. So since I did pay for SE I want to Slim it down instead of buying SI.

Thanks.

mikesart

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Hero Points: 11
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2008, 10:00:31 pm »
I agree that it would be nice to see SlickEdit go on a bit of a diet. However I used Source Insight for well over 10 years (just switched 2 years ago) and for my asm/C/C++ coding I very much disagree that Source Insight does almost everything SE does.

Updates/Support are the largest two. Since December 2006, there have been 6 updates and those are all pretty much minor fixes. The last one was seven months ago. We (three of us used it here) sent him e-mail with various feature requests involving setting visible space/tab color separately, copy data from symbol info dialog, pg-up/down working in symbol info dialog, poor C++ member name parsing, huge file windows on large screen monitors, etc. and we heard nothing back. Zip. /dev/null. This was after we tried to just license the source code (and were told no) because we were so sick of all these little nits. I also didn't realize how much I was overcompensating for the incredibly crappy C++ tagging in SI until I started using SlickEdit. It's in another class for features like that.

So while I really did enjoy the smallness and speed of SI and would love to see an SE version which focused more on that, I would say the SE developers (and folks on this forum) have made the switch more than worth it for me. I haven't gotten everything I've asked for, but I personally have been very happy I moved over to SE.

Ding Zhaojie

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 192
  • Hero Points: 36
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2008, 04:25:34 pm »
Slickedit is much bigger then SourceInsight in size. But it is worth and I don't think "SourceInsight can do almost everything that SE does".

In my experience, SourceInsight is a good code navigator, but in editing codes SourceInsight can not compare with SE. Because it lacks too many basic features to be a code editor. I switched from SourceInsight to Slickedit about 4 years ago, and I think I can not switch back now because SE is more powerful than SI not only in editing features but also in project management, version control, auto-completion, debugging, refactoring... almost everything except the code rendering  ;D

For example, SourceInsight can not support:
* column mode. I love this feature in SE! It really saves my time. It can:
  (all screen shots were captured in SE v10, so they are slightly different with the newest version)
  + comment a block:
   
  + help me write definitions (cool! ;D):
   
* soft wrap. When I writing documents in Docbook XML, the soft-wrapping is extremely useful.
* tabbed file switching. I can't suffer the stupid Window menu in SI any longer...
* Javadoc/Doxygen editing & viewing.
   
...

Ding Zhaojie

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 192
  • Hero Points: 36
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2008, 04:46:03 pm »
My auto-completion test: Who is smarter?  ;D (SourceInsight vs. SlickEdit)
Code: [Select]
struct st_s {
    struct st_s *b;
    struct st_s **c;
};

typedef struct st_s *st_t;

st_t            tmp;
struct st_s     *arr[100];

In these screen shots: white background is SI(upper), dark background is SE(lower).

Test 1

SI does not know the difference between "." and "->"  >:(

Test 2

c is a pointer to pointer, type "." or "->" should not get anything. SI was wrong, again.

Test 3



SI was confused and stopped show auto-completion choices. SE did excellent!
« Last Edit: March 01, 2008, 04:53:47 pm by Ding Zhaojie »

Dan112123

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Hero Points: 2
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 05:28:06 am »
My auto-completion test: Who is smarter?  ;D (SourceInsight vs. SlickEdit)

Ding Zhaojie I appriciate your response. Sadly that's not what I was asking. I'm actually kind of surpised someone took the time to create this post seems like a lot of work  :o. Most things you listed here can be done in SI btw.

But that's not what my question was, I was not asking which one is better, I was asking if someone took the time and made SE smaller in size.

Thank you.

Ding Zhaojie

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 192
  • Hero Points: 36
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2008, 07:23:18 am »
My auto-completion test: Who is smarter?  ;D (SourceInsight vs. SlickEdit)

Ding Zhaojie I appriciate your response. Sadly that's not what I was asking. I'm actually kind of surpised someone took the time to create this post seems like a lot of work  :o. Most things you listed here can be done in SI btw.

But that's not what my question was, I was not asking which one is better, I was asking if someone took the time and made SE smaller in size.

Thank you.
I did those compare at 2006 to show the advantages of SE to my team, I just post the result here so it does not take me too much time.

I just want to say SI can not do the things I listed here, because I totally disagree with you opinion about "it does almost everything that SE does".  But if you know how to do them with SI, please fix me.

And I don't think the size is a problem, because after you installed it in a 40-300 GiB hdd, who cares about the size? For a development tool, features and performances are much more important than size.

Ding Zhaojie

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 192
  • Hero Points: 36
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2008, 08:07:20 am »
Interesting: does SourceInsight really save the space?

I downloaded and installed SI 3.5.0058 (OMG! 4 year ago when I was using SI, the version is 3.5.xxxx, too!), and created project for Linux kernel 2.6.23.1. After SI finished creating the symbol database, the project size is:
Code: [Select]
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None  87412736 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.IAB
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None    853968 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.IAD
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None  44802048 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.IMB
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None    437848 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.IMD
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None     83792 Mar  5 15:44 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.PFI
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None       776 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.PO
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None   6536288 Mar  5 15:34 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.PR
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None  42399264 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.PRI
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None 325225680 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.PS
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None       444 Mar  5 15:45 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.SearchResults
-rwx------+ 1 Ding Zhaojie None     18393 Mar  5 15:59 Linux Kernel 2.6.23.1.WK3

484MB in total!

But SlickEdit v12.0.3:
Code: [Select]
-rwx------+  1 Ding Zhaojie None    964532 Nov  8 23:22 Linux-2.6.23.1.vpj
-rwx------+  1 Ding Zhaojie None       210 Nov  8 23:14 Linux-2.6.23.1.vpw
-rwx------+  1 Ding Zhaojie None     21624 Mar  5 15:55 Linux-2.6.23.1.vpwhist
-rwx------+  1 Ding Zhaojie None 131350528 Mar  5 15:55 Linux-2.6.23.1.vtg

126MB in total.

Plus the program size:
SourceInsight: 484MB + 3.54MB(really small I must say) = 487.54MB
SlickEdit: 126MB + 133MB = 259MB

The same source codes, which is better in size?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2008, 08:09:17 am by Ding Zhaojie »

mikesart

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Hero Points: 11
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2008, 05:05:55 pm »
I think it might help to be a bit more specific Dan. You say "make SE smaller in size" and it's "very bloated and huge", but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. Disk space? Working set? Too many features you will never use? Faster? Something else? I'm also guessing that some examples of whatever you're finding unusable with SE compared to SI would be useful as well.

For me personally, the disk space with SI vs. SE was a non-concern. The working set for SE is significantly larger and initially was a concern, but after using SE for a bit I found I'm more than willing to pay that penalty because I'm getting infinitely better tagging and I find it much more customizable (like with the open local symbol macro). But that's just my experience and ymmv.

In any case, I'm not able to speak for SlickEdit, but I think your chances of getting an official response or suggestions will go up dramatically if you provided some more details for your complaint. (I've personally found them to be incredibly helpful, which is the other reason I'm so happy with SE.)

Take care,
 -Mike

ScottW, VP of Dev

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1471
  • Hero Points: 64
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2008, 10:47:52 pm »
We're running about 150MB on disk for Windows. Though this may not be small, it doesn't seem to be a significant issue based on how large hard drives have gotten. What are you trying to do that this is causing problems for?

Certainly, things can be paired down. It's hard to believe that any one person uses all of the provided capabilities. I can't really provide any suggestions for how to do this since anything you do would make this unsupportable. At best you might be able to get rid of about 40MB of stuff before you started to run into trouble. Hardly seems worth the effort.

I'm very interested in your feedback, though. I want to be sure we're taking things in the right direction.

Dan112123

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Hero Points: 2
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2008, 11:36:48 pm »
We're running about 150MB on disk for Windows. Though this may not be small, it doesn't seem to be a significant issue based on how large hard drives have gotten. What are you trying to do that this is causing problems for?

I'm very interested in your feedback, though. I want to be sure we're taking things in the right direction.

Hi Scott and thank you for your reply. Yes what I mean is the size of the installation. 150Mb for me 147Mb too much. The size matters to me. I know that getting SE to 3Mb is unrealistic but 15Mb? Should be reasonable. Ideally what I would like to see is during install phase you'd have something that would give user an option to not install Debugging capabilities, chose only languages that they care about. Chose the tools that they care about.

For example I only use this on Windows/C++/C# and I do not debug using SE and I do not compile using SE, I use Beyond Compare and don't use DiffZilla etc. Why for example do I need all these bitmaps in the bitmap directory? Builtins I don't need anything from there... Macros there are tons of macros that I will never use. in Win directory I don't need gbd.exe, grep, jaws, t2, you get the idea... So I would like to cut the fat that I don't need and have a small/fast install but the problem is I don't know what the dependencies are so if I remove something I don't know that in the future when I go to change a setting SE wouldn't blow up on me.

Also I love the idea of XCopy installs where the User directory and the registry doesn't get polluted, if that was the case that would have been a plus too.


DaveyC

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 146
  • Hero Points: 9
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2008, 08:21:39 am »
You should try RAD 7 or RDz 7. 3GB footprint, takes about 3 minutes to load up. Compared to that, Slick is a size 0.

ScottW, VP of Dev

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1471
  • Hero Points: 64
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2008, 04:30:52 pm »
I'm still struggling to understand what's driving the size limits you propose. What is accomplished by paring SlickEdit down to 15MB? Are you working on really old computers with very little disk space? Even if you are copying your SlickEdit installation to a USB drive, 150MB is no longer a significant amount of space because 4GB drives are very cheap now.

Removing unused elements won't speed up execution. How often are you installing SlickEdit that installation speed is an issue? SlickEdit uses an installer mostly as a way to uncompress files. I don't think we put anything in the registry and we only put the config in the My Documents directory as a default. You can change the location using the -sc option on startup. Once installed, you can copy your install directory to a different location, like a USB drive and run from there.

Without understanding why a small size is important, I can't approve the work necessary to build an installer with lots of optional elements or the analysis necessary to determine what items can safely be deleted.

Dan112123

  • Community Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Hero Points: 2
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2008, 05:58:52 pm »
Scott, yes I still do use an old laptop with a relatively small HD and every bit count but most of all I thin I just don't like bloat. I don't like files just laying around for the sake of it the sutff that I don't use. I'm still using Zortech C++ compiler. Remember that one? It only takes up 1Mb packed.

BTW where can I find list of all Command line parameters? Searching for "Command Line Parameters" in help yields results for SlickEdit command line not the cmd.exe line parameters.

ScottW, VP of Dev

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 1471
  • Hero Points: 64
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2008, 06:14:03 pm »
You can find command line arguments under "Invocation Options" in the Appendix of the User Guide.

DaveyC

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 146
  • Hero Points: 9
Re: Thin SlickEdit
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2008, 04:17:00 am »
Dan, while I understand where you're coming from I can't see how SlickEdit will get any ROI by creating a thin SlickEdit. The overwhelming majority of us don't care about 150MB. That's
tiny when compared to the capacity and price of today's hard drives. In fact, I can easily fit the product on my $100 memory key.