I agree - each part should work well (and as far as possible be in Julia). We should keep the eye on compatibility though, for example many IDEs assume the gdb-mi interface for the debugger. If we go our own way in Julia it will make it much harder to adopt.
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 10:20:12 AM UTC-4, Tom Breloff wrote: > > And to continue Andrei's answer... all of these things need to work well > in their own right, and that's what the community should be focused on. > IDEs will happen naturally, but they should be composed of things that > exist in isolation (IMO). > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Andrei <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> To continue Michael's answer, I think it would be nice to collect list of >> most important features that existing editors for Julia still lack and >> think out what can be improved. So far I've seen following features: >> >> * integrated debugger -- currently work in progress (Gallium.jl), so it >> may change soon >> * better integration with REPL -- AFAIK, Emacs is the only editor that >> has this integration (via ESS mode) so far >> * code refactoring >> * built-in documentation (in addition to Julia's own help system, I >> suppose) >> * built-in plots >> >> This doesn't look like a huge list. If this is what is needed for >> non-programmers to work with Julia without pain, I'd say we have a good >> chances to get it. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Michael Francis <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> I'd take the neutral ground here - for a language like Julia there is a >>> continuum of users ranging from people happy to live in vim/emacs, through >>> Developer IDEs to people looking for a 'Workbench'. This is dissimilar from >>> many of the languages being argued about in this thread (C, Java, Lisp ... >>> ), most never get to the point of the Workbench. I don't see it so much as >>> a 'beginner programmer' as a person looking for a place to do their work, >>> this is the beauty of the Workbench. >>> >>> I do think Julia would benefit from a best in class Developer IDE, for >>> most traditional languages the Developer IDE is the high point - Intelij >>> products take the chore of writing Java and make it bearable. The >>> integration with the debugger, the package system and the ability to >>> perform large scale refactors of code is stunning. It isn't essential for >>> the success of the language but it helps. >>> >>> For Julia to thrive in the 'I have a job to do which isn't programming' >>> community Julia is going to something closer to a Workbench ( R Studio, >>> Matlab like) - Juno et al have attempted to blur the line towards a >>> Workbench quite successfully. The notebook is ok, but not a perfect >>> environment. I suspect this is the area where innovation can really happen >>> and I see the glimmers of that already. >>> >>> Just my 2c >>> >>> On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 8:56:31 AM UTC-4, J Luis wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm have many years of experience with Matlab and find its IDE a >>>>>> can't-work-without-it tool. When one experiments its debugger the reason >>>>>> becomes obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Do you claim that Fortran, C and Perl never achieved success until >>>>> someone wrote an IDE with a built-in debugger? ... Yeah, I know that's >>>>> not >>>>> what you want to say. Please understand that even if you find an IDE >>>>> indispensable for Matlab, that doesn't make IDEs indispensable for all >>>>> people for all languages. The fair thing to say about IDEs is that they >>>>> are >>>>> a really good idea to have because there are people who really really >>>>> want >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have to admit that it's not fair to do such comparisons for the >>>> simple fact that when those languages started (and long long time after) >>>> IDEs like we are talking simply did not exist. Not that they do, you can't >>>> live without them. I do but with pain and let just don't forget that we >>>> are >>>> talking of general acceptance and not only the "Carnival of hackers". >>>> >>>> I've seen this discussion some here ago in the Octave mailing list. See >>>> how much it was adopted (rather poorly in my view), specially on Windows. >>>> >>>> Joaquim >>>> >>>>> >> >
