-1 to audits, UML, more netbeans-like behaviour, and all other such things.
My love for IDEA stems from the fact that it's an editor. That is what I use it for, to edit my java code. Once IDEA has an openAPI, then I'm all for people writing whatever plugins they want to do auditing, i18n, stupidvariablenamedetection, UML, and whatever else people feel is important. However, It'll all be optional, and I can stilll have my 5mb IDEA download. After that I get to choose how lean or not I want to run it! On 31/10/01 12:37 pm, "Noah Nordrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently not every likes audits :) > > I personally like the audits that are part of Together. It would also be > nice if they would expose an interface (don't forget about supporting > auto-fix) for custom audits, and then perhaps make an audit repository that > people could submit their audits to. This way, they could get support for > audits into IDEA very quickly, and allow us to work on building a useful > suite of audits. > > Let me remind all you audit haters in advance, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE EVERY > FEATURE IN IDEA. Audits would be a nice compliment to the JUnit integration, > and would help with creating more consistent code (which is what I'm sure we > all are trying our best to avoid ;> ). > > Noah > > p.s. (I just thought of this) is there a way to modify the "template" that > is used for when you do "create getters/setters"? that would be a nice way > to satisfy all of the ways that people want their getters/setters created > since I remember that subject caused some serious controversy a month or two > ago... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain RAVET" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:26 AM > Subject: [Eap-features] Code Analysis : step 2 (was RE: Automatically create > compiler output path) > > >> For >>> AR> 4� Stupid looking names >>> AR> no vowels : String ptrkpppzz = ... >>> AR> too short : int pe = ... >>> AR> too long with same case >>> AR> : boolean thisiscryingforabettercasing = false ; >>> AR> ... >> >> Bluntpeak wrote >>>> -1 >> >> Dmitry Jemerov wrote >>>> -10 >> >> >> Whooooo. Cool down guys. >> This was not the point of my origigal post. >> >> It was just food for thought, >> to trigger an answer to the real question >> "Do we want code analysis in IDEA" >> and it worked. >> >> If we all agree on this point (and I only got positive answers to this), >> then we can start thinking about what we want to put in our bag. >> >> Now, we can start thinking about what, and in what order. >> You already saw my first sketch. >> >> Who wants what, and in what priority >> >> I think >> - metrics based code smells >> (class/method too big/small) >> should come first (like next week :0) >> >> - dead code tracker should come second >> should come second. >> I'd kill a virtuagirl for this one. >> >> >> Alain Ravet >> >> >> This mail has been checked by exiscan. >> To be safe, please scan the mail attachements with your local virus > scanner ! >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Eap-features mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Eap-features mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
