Like @fngjdflmdflg noted, years ago when i moved to linux (for personal use), I also had trouble finding a decent/similar replacement to Notepad++. I started down the Geany route, and liked it alot. It is cross-platform, not slow, has lots of themes, customization options, etc. But eventually I stopped using it, and landed on Kate. For the life of me can't recall why i moved away from Geany? I have been a user of KDE Plasma for many years, but that's not the reason why i moved to Kate, because i actually was still a user of Geany for quite a while during my use of KDE Plasma. In any case, Geany is a really solid option. Not sure that Geany is a feature-for-feature, perfect alternative for Notepad++ (but neither is my favorite Kate editor either!)...nevertheless, the rare times when people ask me for recommendation of text editors on linux (or cross-platform with the intent of using the same editor on all their OSes), I often stick to suggesting Geany or Kate. And, then of course, if they're exclusively Windows users i then suggest either Notepad++ or Geany Kate - not necessarily in any order.
(For the Windows machines that my dayjobs issue me, I still use Notepad++ since funny enough that is easier to allow then requesting to install Kate! Corporate world be getting all strict on software installations nowadays - yikes!)
Notepad has 16 toolbar buttons in the same amount of width that GTK can only fit 10 toolbar buttons. The height of the tabs and status bars are also MUCH shorter. It's completely ridiculous and makes every GTK app look bad to me. Not just Geany, but Xed, Pluma, Gedit, the image viewers, the file managers, the system settings dialogs, etc. I have a mouse. I can point at things. I'm not using my thumbs or toes to operate a desktop app.
Qt's licensing sounded a bit weird. At first I thought your app HAD to be open source to use it. But once it was clear to me that you can sell apps made with Qt so long as you dynamically link without having to pay royalties or anything, the choice was clear. If I have to program an app for Linux, I'm using Qt.
And so far the only problem I found in Qt is that it uses the system's "native" GUI by default (i.e. it uses Gtk on Linux). This means that the Ok-Cancel buttons are Cancel-Ok instead of the correct order. Who puts Ok buttons at the right side? Now if I want to quickly close something, I'm clicking at the corner of the window which is the easiest point to click at, and on the top right I have close (which cancels) and at the bottom right I don't have cancel but Ok which COMMITS which is the opposite of what a thoughtless rash speedy click is supposed to do. Ok should be at the left so you can't commit things by accident. The only reason to put it on the right is if you're designing for tablets so the ok button is closer for right-handed users. This isn't how a decision for a desktop-oriented design.
Exactly this. It's already cross platform (windows and Linux, at least), extendable, looks very similar and has many of the same features. I'm not sure what killer feature is missing that would make someone reimplement the whole thing. The readme weirdly doesn't mention it.
reply