On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:29 +0000, Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > The thing that annoys me with IDE's is generally not the IDE > itself, or even their heaviness. The main problem I encounter > with them is that they often end up being tied with the project > itself, which means that if you want to build or modify an exist > project, you have to install the same IDE as the original > developer used. On open source projects it doesn't happen too > often, but at work it happens all the time. The java jockeys use > eclipse with a lot extensions, it take a day alone to install > that shit (and be careful some of them work only on 32 bit > eclipse while other require 64 bit eclipse). The frontend guys, > use another java environment. The desktop apps of our project > used and Visual Studio . The thing is, the old version of our > app, which requires still support until it is replaced by a new > one app, doesn't compile under a recent Visual Studio. > > TL;DR > The big issue with IDE's is that they become part of the projects > themselves.
I thought this sort of crap had gone out with the naughties. Any modern project uses something such as CMake, SCons, Meson, Gradle, etc. and the IDEs have plugins to generate the projects from the build system specifications. This is certainly true for all the JetBrains and Eclipse systems I use. As soon as you have to start defining the project in the IDE you are on to a total loser. So I am agreeing that the experience outlined above is wrong, but I am also saying I have not had that experience with IDEs in the last five years or more. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
