JD Arnold wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Vladimir Tsvetkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is obviously a trick question, because
real
programmers don't use IDEs. Case Closed.
I'm not a real programmer, but UNIX is a great
developer environment.
It's a tool based environment.
Small tools, strong cohesion in what they are
designed for, easy ways
to combine them to form more complex tasks.
Good documentation too.
Actually you don't need anything else, you
don't need a colourfull IDE. But...
Maybe only few, really exceptional people can
benefit and grok the
power of this kind of environments.
To me the ideal "IDE" is actually a toolkit:
- Source Editor, preferably with a object
browser or other kind of a
source browser. An autocomplete functionallity
could increase
productivity too - this could increase quality
if we measure quality
of code by the low number of syntax mistakes,
but this could also be a
threat to quality letting the programmer write
without reading
carefully what is written - code bloating.
- Compiler with a debugger. We must discuss
about the pros. and cons.
of a grafic debugger versus a text-mode
debugger. The things are
getting really messy when it comes up to
debugging multithreading code
and I really don't know what is the ultimate
tool for this task.
- A build tool. Ant or make will suffice.
- Source control tools. CVS, SVN etc.
- Documentation tools. POD, Doxygen, Javadoc or
something else.
- Unit testing framework. This is not always a
tool. This could be a
language extension, or a testing API.
- Other tools.
You don't need to put everything together in a
single swissknife-tool,
but this could be convenient in some cases.
IDE vs. Toolbased Environments ???
Which is more productive and how to measure
productiveness?
Best Regards,
Vladimir Tsvetkov
Tools, schmools. vi and cc work for me.
I do admit that I wish someone would get make to
accept spaces instead of the (damn) tab. I think
its time for that :)
That's why you should graduate to Emacs - with the makefile syntax
highlighting,
you'll at least see the differences between tabs and spaces before
getting into
trouble due to bad whitespacing!-)
you're certainly giving a viewpoint that has a great deal of truth to
it, but I guess what scares folks is the horrible, horrible emacs
learning curve,. At one point in my career (in school, lisp
programming) I learned/used emacs. I admit, it's got so much power,
there isn't even a close competitor. BUT at that time, I had a genius
girl programmer at my side, and she helped me with emacs syntax so
heavily it was funny, and so I could make use of emacs without really
having to scale the learning curve.
If I'd actually had to scale that learning curve, do you think I would
have, even COULD have used emacs? One of the worst things I had happen,
I needed, one year later, to go back to vi for a job, and just forgot
enough emacs usages, and never went back. I'd love to, but I'd have to
find another genius Lisp girlfriend, before I could do that.
Likely? That's why emacs isn't the world's most popular editor/IDE.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
