If you're using TextMate you can navigate through your snippets/models quite easily - I've implemented a nifty little feature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXMh_uoeeTs
Now I know this is only for TextMate but I'm sure it wouldn't be too big a hassle to implemented in whatever editor/IDE you favor :) On 06/03/2010, at 21.36, Timothy Perrett wrote: > >>> Back when I was doing Rails, the state of Rails' documentation was not >>> materially different from the current state of Lift's documentation with the >>> exception of DHH's awesome book (which is my all time favorite tech book). >>> Most of the online documentation was weak or non-existent. >> >> This is true, but *getting started* was extremely easy. A few very non- >> intimidating commands and you were up & running and making quick edits >> that appeared in real time. Once you started to dig a little deeper >> you ran into the problems you describe but by that point the fish was >> already on the hook. > > See: > http://code.google.com/p/simple-build-tool/wiki/Processors > > This is what I am working on with Mark Harrah. We will ultimately have > a simple "lift" command in the SBT shell... As i said before (and it > appears to have been ignored) we are working on this, and its going to > give us a very robust platform and vastly improve user experience. > >>> While I'm not sure I 100% agree with Tim's "6 million dollar man" argument >>> about PDF, PDF is common and useful... Scribd (which is definitely in the >>> hip-cool-kids side of street) is built on PDF. >> >> PDF is great if you're making an ebook. It loses on every other score. >> I have to download it each time it's updated. I can't link into it >> from other sites. > > HAHA... well i wont start an argument on that, i'll just say that we > as an organisation have tens of millions of dollars invested in PDF... > its not going anywhere from the IT eco-system and I generally disagree > with your points but I wont get into the finer points of electronic > document creation. > >>> Okay... sorry... but this is a gratuitous swipe. Ugly == Not Easy to Use. >>> Nope. Sorry. I don't buy this. >> >> It's because of this - it suggests that the people behind the docs >> don't have either the time or the inclination to attend to the little >> details, which implies that other details might also be overlooked. If >> making attractive & easy to read introductory materials isn't a >> priority for the developers, maybe they also don't care about making >> the rest of the experience pleasant. > > Im not sure I agree (experience tells me developers are more > pragmatic), but I take your point. > >> I haven't found this to be the case at all. I build a new ruby into a >> separate install prefix and gem install rails and I'm ready to go. I >> certainly don't have to deal with anything approaching the complexity >> and inscrutability of a 152 line pom.xml. > > See above about SBT. Moreover, what was your feeling the first time > you saw a complex rake file? Im not defending maven, rather, just > think of the similar reaction. > >>> I do 50% of my coding with Emacs and my fingers do the right thing. Those >>> using TextMate or an IDE don't worry at all. >> >> I already hate having to navigate 3 directory levels in rails, even >> with ido mode. Three *more* tabs to each file doesn't sound like fun. > > As was already discussed, its only 3 more levels if you use the java > package naming. Call it whatever you want. > > Cheers, Tim > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
