On 14/08/2014 01:54, Brian Schott wrote:
On Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 00:43:38 UTC, Damian Day wrote:
I'm not sure you'd want to do that. The DParser completion engine has
a few features that DCD doesn't have. (I'm not sure if this is true
the other way around)

That's true, but duplicated work and all that.. It would be a nice way
to battle test DCD and the lexer.

Keep in mind that integrating a lexer/parser written in C# into an IDE
written in C# is much easier than integrating libdparse would be. The
same argument applies to Eclipse and Visual Studio.

True, but I'm now convinced that most likely, an IDE/editor architecture where most (if not all) of semantic analysis and operations are performed by an external tool, is the way forward. (Steve Teale made a case for this in a post quite some time ago, I wasn't that convinced then, but I am now)

The market of IDEs/editors for new languages is extremely saturated. Even for older, consolidated languages, the market has become more diverse. It used be that Eclipse-JDT was king for Java, or Visual Studio for C# (and C++ to a degree). But now a lot of people swear by IntelliJ IDEA and Netbeans (for Java), and there's MonoDevelop too, for C#.

This means its increasingly harder for each IDE/editor to develop their own, full semantic engine, since there is more competition. Especially for upcoming languages where most tooling is being develop by volunteers.

With this realization I have started to move DDT to this architecture, it's something that I have been working for the past few months.

I'm particularly interested in dscanner integration myself :)

Are you talking about displaying static analysis hints in the editor
window, or something else?

Yes precisely.

BTW, what is the relation of dscanner to DCD? Or more precisely, why are they separate tools?..

Bruno Medeiros

Reply via email to