On Apr 06, 2007, at 07:19 UTC, Sven E Olsson wrote: > (On Mac) > Works great, what is that mean? > So you mean that if I load a text file in about 3-5MB, the EditField > works great or what?
I don't know -- I have hundreds of text files I routinely work with, but I can't think of one at the moment that's multiple MB. But "works great" means that I've been using it for years, in lots of apps released to lots of people, and never once had a complaint about the performance, nor noticed any performance problems myself. It also adheres to platform standards; on the Mac it properly handles double- and triple-clicks, double-click-drag, drag-moving, drag-copying, Text Services, international languages (including Chinese, Japanese, etc.), and on and on. It's always been great for me, and given the wide variety of uses to which I've put it, I think my experience is probably typical. No, it's not a word processor or a code editor, and it's not intended to be. It's an edit field. If you look inside Word or AppleWorks or CodeWarrior or XCode, or even TextWrangler, you will not find them using a standard edit field. Those are specialized editors with specialized requirements, which calls for specialized code. (As is the case with the RB code editor, for that matter.) Some people seem to expect RB to provide them with all the specialized hard parts of their application, so they can (as Norman put it) create something unique and special without doing any work. That's ridiculous. My only complaint with RB's EditField is that, on the Mac, it doesn't properly support tab stops. But I filed a feature request, and it's already been marked as implemented for 2007r3. That'll be less than three months from now; I can wait (and kudos to REAL Software for fixing that so quickly after it was reported!). Best, - Joe > > If we read the LR about EdiField, then we see a lot of features that > meet our needs, absolute. > But there is nothing about the limitations of 40KB or something like > that. > > I understand that the EditField works great, if you use very small > files. > > If I load a plain text file, without color that is 3MB in size, a > default application with one window, one EditField use 178MB RAM > Memory, is that great? If I select that text, the memory usage is > about 190MB RAM. A 3MB text file is not big today, perhaps it was > 1999. (TextWrangler use 28MB for the same file, with syntax coloring) > > Great could means a lot... in this case at least for the memory chip > factories. > > (The scroll bar also have some issues with bigger files (2007r2)) > > So in this case "Great" means nothing.. But it could be interesting > to know what type of files and size that works great. > > Have a nice weekend to you all, > > Sven E > ----------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > -- Joe Strout -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a Better Place" http://www.verex.com/ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
