There's certainly nothing to stop anyone from writing C# code in something like Sublime. In fact there's a plugin for it: https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-sublime#omnisharpsublime-for-st3
As well as other popular text editors: http://www.omnisharp.net/#integrations On 10 August 2015 at 14:53, Michael Ridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is an interesting point.... > > > http://www.quora.com/Do-people-still-write-and-compile-programs-from-the-command-line-instead-of-an-IDE-Why-or-why-not > > Like Simon Willison <http://www.quora.com/Simon-Willison> so eloquently > puts it - not relying on gives you superpowers. After you reach a certain > level of skill as a programmer, an IDE starts slowing you down, rather than > the opposite. > > I remember my time as a .NET developer - even though I was REALLY into > using a lot of powerful refactoring tools such as ReSharper, Visual Studio > still slowed be down in the end. It's a big, complex multi-gigabyte tool > that start pretty slowly, takes ages to install, and I quite often found > myself waiting for it while it performed some unfathomable computation in > the background. All things that make you lose flow. > > Compare this to me nowadays, developing node.js using Sublime Text. The > server reloads in milliseconds. Sublime loads in a second or two. I run > tests and compile stuff with small batch scripts that I've written myself. > I develop at*insane* speed compared to a few years back. > > > *Back them, I was driving around a battlecruiser, trying to swat flies > with it. Nowadays, I'm a ninja that can cut the flies precisely with my > katana.* > > Oh, and if you like my writing, don't miss out on more of it - > follow me on Quora and Twitter (http://twitter.com/mpjme) > > *Michael Ridland | Technical Director | Xamarin MVP* > > XAM Consulting - Mobile Technology Specialists > > www.xam-consulting.com > > Blog: www.michaelridland.com > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh! TypeScript ... I forgot about that. I see a new project wizard >> template in VS2015, so I might as well lick it and see what happens. >> >> What you've all been saying is interesting about productivity and trends >> and such, but one overriding issue keeps slapping me: JavaScript is the >> wrong tool to construct any serious application. Notice is called java >> *Script*. It's a technically wonderful example of a dynamic scripting >> language, which combined with its slightly functional feel means you can >> mould it into almost anything, which has happened many times over (too many >> times!). As my code expanded yesterday I felt like I was building an >> airplane out of string and glue, at which point I threw in the towel. Lack >> of an IDE just compounded the situation. >> >> As a refresher, read the article on Shell script >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_script> which has some sobering >> generally applicable comments further down about the advantages and limits >> of scripting. >> >> *GK* >> >> *Many modern shells also supply various features usually found only in >> more sophisticated general-purpose programming languages, such as >> control-flow constructs, variables, comments, arrays, subroutine and so on. >> With these sorts of features available, it is possible to write reasonably >> sophisticated applications as shell scripts. However, they are still >> limited by the fact that most shell languages have little or no support for >> data typing systems, classes, threading, complex math, and other common >> full language features, and are also generally much slower than compiled >> code or interpreted languages written with speed as a performance goal.* >> >> *Shell scripts often serve as an initial stage in software development, >> and are often subject to conversion later to a different underlying >> implementation...* >> >> On 10 August 2015 at 14:19, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 at 13:39 Scott Barnes <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I disagree, i think people are constantly asking the "better" question. >>>> >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> but i'd argue that if the devs had the choice over ECMA 6, CSS3 and >>>> HTML5 vs ECMA 3x, CSS2 and HTML5 ...i'd probably guess what the $100 spends >>>> would bring back, that is better typescript style language support which >>>> would ideally compliment their practices and behaviours today (plus tooling >>>> could probably lock onto better more focused patterns of code). >>>> >>>> If you can argue (or anyone) that breadth has no factoring into the >>>> JavaScript as a nominated "answer" then I'd be curious to see how you avoid >>>> that subject. It has to be the driver behind its adoption. >>>> >>> >>> I think JS' breadth IS why it is the "answer". >>> >>> I have turned into a pragmatist in my middle age and would look straight >>> past the fact that it is software engineering arse and embrace it and look >>> to what breadth does for shareholder returns. >>> >>> David. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Connors >>> [email protected] | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363 >>> >> >> >
