[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:46:29 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-09-15 11:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> > Windows actually does the same thing, except the filename *is* the
> > command:
> >
> > $ file.txt
> >
> > And yea, either way, "open file.txt" or "file.txt", it is kinda
> > nice. Although I find I use it very rarely, oddly enough.
> 
> I mostly use "open" to open a directory in the file browser:
> 
> $ open .
> 
> That's especially useful when opening hidden folders. 

Yea, that one I picked up a few weeks ago when I first tried to test
the release builder script on OSX. I couldn't for the life of me figure
out how to get Finder to show the temp directory, so a little bit of
web searching led me to that. But I didn't know it worked for files,
too.

The windows version is (for directories only):
$ explorer .


> > Hmm. What's the benefit over just doing this?:
> >
> > $ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
> 
> $ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
> -bash: /Applications/TextEdit.app: Is a directory
> 
> .app "files" are bundles, that is, directories which Finder and other 
> tools treat specially.
> 
> The actual executable is located at 
> /Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit
> 

Ahh, ok. I knew about bundles, but I didn't know the command line
didn't do the same special handling for them, too.


> In the case of TextEdit, running:
> 
> $ /Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit foo.txt
> 
> Will complain that foo.txt doesn't exist. The shell will also wait
> until the application terminates. Running through "open" the shell
> will not wait for the application and it will open the document
> properly.
> 

I see, that's interesting. So it does have a special way to launch an
app asynchronously without the "&" at the end of the command line. Does
it also gag stdout/stderr?

Am I correct in assuming "open" is specifically an OSX thing, and not
something inherited from BSD?