Pretty much any code editor with a jump to source, is a user friendly graph editor. And with refactoring tools, a good debugger and compiler I can't see what is missing
Not all graphs are expressed as code, or should be.
Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
11–20 of 222 posts
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#12Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#13Thanks to this post I found out about TreeSheets. Looks interesting.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#14I think we don't have a general-purpose tree editor for two reasons: 1. Nobody knows what it should look like. 2. Nobody knows how it should work. I fear this article has left me as much in the dark on these points as I was before I read it. Perhaps someone else here will find something in it I missed.
FWIW the editor in Chromium's and Firefox's developer tools are pretty good. I'd really like to see something like that as a standalone tool for both trees and XML and see how far it can be taken.
For XML you may want to take a closer look at XML Marker 1.1 (it's old, freeware and Windows but still better than many other tools) and maybe Eclipse.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#15Check gingko, which is more focussed on docs, but is a tree editor at its core.
Used it at university for notes, and is great for quick revisions before the exams too!
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#16Emacs has ParEdit minor mode which is a general-purpose tree editor. https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ParEdit edit: paredit demos: Productive Emacs: Paredit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1WBsI3gdDE Emacs Rocks! Episode 14: Paredit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6h5dFyyUX0
How good is it?
I've never used it and I'm genuinely curious.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#17We do: http://strlen.com/treesheets/
You can also create a slideshow from it:
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#18Isn't XML already a tree?
Joke aside, graphs are far from being trivial to represent as a data structure, and their use are so various that you can hardly edit a graph using text alone. Even a visual editor would require to be tailored to different work you do with graphs.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#19Somewhat related: I was overwhelmed by complexity of web CMS solutions. I needed something very very simple, that gets the task done (user-editable webpage content).
I represent the web by a tree, every node has metadata (id, type, title) and data. Nodes can be persisted (ie. as json text files, or in database table) and browsed (parent to children and back). Admin UI is very simple: in the left pane there is the tree browser, works like filesystem browser - you can open "folders" (nodes with subnodes) and "files" (leaf nodes). Each node shows specific editor for it's type, that usually consist of few form fields.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#20We do: http://strlen.com/treesheets/
I should take a look at that, in case there are features there that org-mode doesn't already have and are worth stealing.
More seriously, that looks like at least a sizable subset of org-mode's capabilities, implemented in a way that doesn't require clearing the hurdle that getting comfortable with Emacs tends to be. How is it on the import/export/interop side?