On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, Laurens Holst wrote:
> > Perhaps I am the only one, but really prefer the unix way, where all is
> > separated, so you can use your own editor with any programming language
> > and you don't have to learn the editor commands that come with the
> > integrated environment.
>
> I did it that way. TED for editing, Gen80 for compiling...
Before, I always used IDEs, but I switched to developing without IDEs.
You do need multiple consoles or windows, otherwise switching from one task
(editing) to another (compiling) is too cumbersome.
Some advantages of no-IDE:
- Free choice of editors:
To take Compass as an example, I don't like the key shortcuts. CTRL-W
(erase) is too easy to press by mistake if you actually want CTRL-S (start
block) or CTRL-E (end block). Also the shortcuts don't match with any
editor I'm used to (someone once told me Compass uses the key bindings of
TED, but I never used TED).
- Easier to mix with code generating utils:
For example a "library file" creation program, which produces a single file
by concatenating separate files. On MSX, this greatly improves loads and
reduces disk usage if you have many small files. A library creation program
may output an assembly file with the offset of all the original files in
the library. By using an IDE-less environment, I can let that output be
merged with other source files before each compile.
- Fewer bugs:
In my experience, IDEs have more bugs than separate editors and compilers.
This is especially true if you also debug in the IDE, many IDEs can be
crashed by ill behaving programs running in their debugger. And since the
whole purpose of debugging is running possibly ill behaving programs, this
will happen.
- No dependence on any software:
Many IDEs use project files and other IDE-specific settings. So if you
switch to another IDE, you have to re-do those settings. Or if other people
want to use your software, this is also a problem. With separate editors
there is no such problem, and command line compilers are usually quite
conformant to existing standards.
> Compared to Compass: SLOWWWW (no tokenizing),
On MSX: true. I don't think any MSX command line assembler will be able to
beat Compass 2 on speed. However, I switched to PC for compiling a long
time ago. At first, I even used Compass (in an emulator), now I use a
command line assembler. On PC, the speed difference between pre-tokenizing
and tokenizing at compile time doesn't matter. I don't care whether a
compile will take 200ms or 400ms...
> load and save almost every fileformat, from .COM to raw sector access,
You can also get this with command line compiling. That is even more
flexible, you can for example join data with your code. In Compass, that
can only be done if the data is at a fixed address or by reloading the data
after each compile.
Scripting is the key to the power of command line programs...
IDEs give you a number of commonly used options in a convenient way. If you
stick to those, IDEs are easier. If you want something else, IDEs are very
cumbersome.
I like Compass a lot, it is a very good IDE. But I prefer non-IDE to IDE.
About MSX-BASIC as an IDE:
It's OK if your program is less than about 50 lines long.
Bye,
Maarten
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) in
the body (not the subject) of the message.
Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More information on MSX can be found in the following places:
The MSX faq: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/
The MSX newsgroup: comp.sys.msx
The MSX IRC channel: #MSX on Undernet
****
