I would suggest that any feature which is not Perl specific, like the svn and ftp stuff, will be more advanced than in Padre as we are having to implement from scratch something which is provided for free by the core Eclipse platform.
Things that are more Perl specific, like the intuition and refactoring and such, can be better. Adam K On 30 November 2010 14:40, Gabor Szabo <szab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Shlomi, > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il> wrote: >> On Monday 29 November 2010 17:09:37 Ahmad Zawawi wrote: >>> Hi Shlomi, >>> >>> Could you please provide any links of such a discussion? :) >> >> This is the closest I found by grepping my mailing lists' archives: >> >> http://mail.perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/2009-December/010704.html > > First of all you could have said in your original mail that you are quoting me > and not "a core Padre developer". Or did you write that message *before* > finding the quote? > > Second, I don't think I wrote there that "EPIC is recommended". > I wrote Eclipse+EPIC is more advanced. > > As I have not been using Eclipse for a while I don't know in which > feature have Padre supassed it and in which features Padre is still > lacking. Azawawi, it would be nice if you could give use a comparison. > > The issues I can see are > 1) syntax highlighting for 5.10 > 2) the debgugger in Padre is still not being very usable. > 3) VCS integration > 4) Editing via FTP? - I have never used it but as I understand many > people do. Does it work well in Padre? > > > Gabor > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > Padre-dev@perlide.org > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev > _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list Padre-dev@perlide.org http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
