begin  quoting Paul G. Allen as of Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 08:41:14PM -0800:
> Stewart Stremler wrote:
> >How /good/ is the vi-mode?  Most of the time such "modes" tend to be
> >abysmal, and not worth the effort.  Are you saying that Code Forge 
> >possibly did it "right"?
> 
> I've never really used it in that mode very much. For the correct answer, 
> you'd have to try it (they do have a trial version of the IDE you can D/L). 

/me checks

Nifty. SPARC-Solaris and PPC-OSX versions available, but only the x86
Linux. Hm... That's two machines I could run it on. But... $300?

Whoops, they want registration information.  Not sure I want to provide
_that_ at this stage.

> I would guess that, since they've had the capability since virtually day 
> one of the first release, it would be pretty damned good.

I dunno about _that_.  MSWindows has had a command-line tool since 
virtually day one. . . .

[snip]
> >Good for them. That is _not_ at all the impression I get from the
> >website screenshots, thank you for correcting my misperception.
> 
> Yeah, as I said in my other post (just about a min. ago :) ), I don't think 
> the screenshots do them justice.

Could be.  That's the problem with screenshots. :)

[snip]
> >This is the reverse-engineering tool?  I don't really see that as
> >something that *needs* to be integrated -- cscope and cflow are early
> >attempts at that sort of thing, right?
> 
> Yes. An example of the HTML that Understand can produce (and only a very 
> small example of the overall functionality) can be seen here (built with an 
> older version, and these are not screenshots):
> 
> http://www2.randomlogic.com/linux_html/index.html
> http://www2.randomlogic.com/q2source/

Hm...

I'll admit, I don't find those examples compelling.  But I acknowledge
that it's just a small amount of the functionality being demonstrated, and 
that there's a lot of information being presented there that might be useful 
to *someone*.

> >>                                         It's not really an IDE, though 
> >
> >Aha! Okay. That makes a lot more sense.  It didn't *look* very much like
> >an IDE...
> 
> Did I see a light go on? ;)

Yah, I realized there was a conflict between what was implied and what
was inferred.

-Stewart "I imply, you infer -- and then you imply, and I infer!" Stremler
-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to