Talk:List of PHP editors

• Dreamwaver - In the List of free Windows-Editors? Typingerror or obsolete? I could not find a dreamwaver besides the commercial Adobe Dreamweaver"

• Added Eclipse PHP IDE to list of Free PHP Editors. This is really an IDE and not just an PHP editor. I think that their should be a category for IDE's. IDE's are for more complex than a simple Editor with Syntax highlighting. IchBin 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Modified PHP Designer becuase of the lastest version is now commerical. There is a free version but has less features than the prior free version 2006. IchBin 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the grouping into "free" or "commerical" is silly. This could be a simple comment next to each one: MyPhpProgam (commercial). The biggest difference in grouping should be between IDEs as opposed to simply source code editers with syntax coloring support for PHP. 209.92.136.131 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed?

• While this article could use some work, I fail to see what needs cited in a simple list. --72.20.220.91 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Restructure this article?

Isn't this article kinda rubbish? Instead of just providing a list of editors without any facts about them, how about changing the article to a comparison table (perhaps also changing the name) and actually including some details about the editors.

The way it is right now, its pretty much useless in my opinion.

Tehniobium 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Please check User:Johnska7/PhpEditors and let me know if this is looking more like what would make a better article
JohnSka7 ^t/_c 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is notepad in here? lets take it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.110.6 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notepad is in fact a PHP editor. It does not have intelligent highlighting however does have the ability to edit any type of file making it possibly the most versatile editor there is. 66.65.221.52 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why not have vi, vim, nano, pico, emacs, xemacs, notepad++, notepad2, etc. etc. This goes to Tehniobium's point above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Possible addition: Ninjapad NX

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable adding my own product, so I'll draw attention to Ninjapad NX <npnx.defproc.co.uk> that an independent party might judge it worthy of mention. Defproc (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The problem with this kind of list is that there is no suitable criteria for inclusion (see WP:LIST), which inevitably lets all kind of crap and fluff accumulate over time.

My suggestion (at a minimum) is the following:

• Entries should be notable (simplest metric is "do they have their own Wikipedia article"?).
• Entries should have some kind of dedicated PHP functionality or features (even if it's just syntax highlighting). No-one reading this article will learn anything by reading that Notepad can be used to edit PHP source code.

Any thoughts? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No responses, so I'll do it anyway. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They should have a reference that they do have php functionality or features.

I'm trying to find a page that says that pico (text editor) has php functionality. Is this what is meant? It's the best I could find. I don't even know what it means.

It would also help to split up the list and make it professional looking. A good example is Comparison of text editors. It would be useful to mention in what way an editor is a php editor, and also how popular it is. A test of popularity must be possible in various different sites.

Fred-J 08:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already something similar to that comparison article: Comparison_of_integrated_development_environments#PHP. But still, the list would be more useful if it had more flesh to it, more information about editors (with references).

Fred-J 09:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

pico and nano

pico and nano have no features specific to the PHP scripting language. I'm removing them them from the list. hac (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Coda entry is not impartial

The entry for Coda appears to have been added by the company developing it, which would be fair enough under normal circumstances but the entry is far from impartial. All the other entries are linked to the appropriate Wikipedia articles but the Coda entry links directly to the company's website, which is selling the product commercially. The entry also uses promotional language ("Best"), which is forbidden by the Wikipedia rules and is written in very poor English.

I will remove the entry for now.

Jester995 (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"External links" completely useless

The 1 "review" site gives not actual reviews, just random scores and feature lists. Looks like a fly by night page, and refers to program versions YEARS old.
The "list" of PHP editors looks like another fly by night site. Very old info as well.
And the "Everything about PHP" link is broken, the best link is probably to php.net Analogrival (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PHP editors or Text editors?

This page just seems like a list of text editors rather than PHP editors. 007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

gedit for example is a text editor that includes syntax highlighting for various languages, including php. I personally use gedit as a php editor for its simplicity. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)