On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-4, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > On 14 September 2015 at 12:40, J Luis <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> segunda-feira, 14 de Setembro de 2015 às 09:26:05 UTC+1, Daniel Carrera >> escreveu: >>> >>> >>> On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> While I understand your point, the success of a new programming >>>> language depends on the availability of a good IDE. >>>> >>> >>> No it doesn't. >>> >>> C, C++, Perl, Python, Fortran, JavaScript, PHP, and arguably even Java >>> became successful long before they acquired an IDE. I think that there are >>> more languages that became successful without an IDE than with one, so >>> let's not overstate the issue. An IDE is *good* to have because *some* >>> people want them. Good documentation is more important. Having the right >>> features and being at the right place at the right time is even more >>> important. >>> >> >> Yes it does (IMO off course) >> > > > This is not a matter of opinion. This is an empirical claim. With little > effort we can define a criterion for language success, and determine > whether any language has ever become successful before it acquired an IDE. > A single example (e.g. Fortran) falsifies the claim. In fact, I would make > a stronger statement: that MOST successful languages achieve success before > acquiring an IDE. Off the top of my head, I offer the following successful > languages: > > Without IDE: C, C++, Perl, Python, Fortran, JavaScript, PHP, Java >
Some more data points: Cobol, PL/I, Lisp/Scheme, M/MUMPS (you may not have heard of it, but your healthcare systems (HMO, hospital, lab) probably use it), Basic, Pascal, Ada, Ruby, Rexx (and the list goes on!) With IDE: C#, VisualBasic, Matlab > Yes, IDEs can be nice, mostly for debugging sessions, IMO, and I try to write code that I don't have to debug later. I'm happier with a more powerful editor such as Emacs, most IDEs have comparatively fairly limited editors.
