Oh, I'm not suggesting that we remove references to WingIDE entirely.
Just that particular 2008 article (and hopefully replace it with a newer
reference). It's ancient and doesn't seem relevant to the current Python
IDE scene.
Cheers,
Andrew
On 6/5/18 11:14 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
Your call, but as an active Wing user I will just point out that the
company support their product very actively, if that helps.
regards
Steve
Steve Holden
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 3:18 AM, Andrew Janke <and...@apjanke.net
<mailto:and...@apjanke.net>> wrote:
On 5/27/18 10:25 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote:
On 05/26/2018 12:22 PM, Andrew Janke wrote:
Good to go. I was able to edit the page. Thanks!
Andrew
Thanks for taking this on... someone motivated to pick a an
IDE is the
perfect candidate to update the tables. You even inspired me
to make a
few more changes!
While we're here, there are links to a number of articles that
compare
IDEs. In this modern world, there appear to be an infinite
number of
"ten best" type articles, as, sadly, people have learned how
effective
they are as clickbait, so I'm not sure how to refresh this
list, but I'm
thinking that we should drop the older articles. The ones from
2000,
2005, even 2008 seem unlikely to be very applicable, as all of the
surviving IDEs have evolved, and some (BlackAdder?) don't seem
to have
survived. Any objections if I kill a few? Andrew - if you
found any
useful comparsion article, please feel free to add, I'm just
thinking we
shouldn't add the dozens, maybe hundreds, of such comparisons
that pop
up if you ask a search engine.
-- mats
That makes sense.
I have no useful comparison articles to add. I think one can smell
the difference between original content and a "ten best" clickbait
listicle, and all the decent original-content comparison articles
I've found are already in this Wiki entry. (E.g. this one that you
have linked is a really good one:
https://xcorr.net/2013/04/17/evaluating-ides-for-scientific-python/
<https://xcorr.net/2013/04/17/evaluating-ides-for-scientific-python/>)
Which is kind of sad because the last comparo article is from 2013.
At any rate, I also agree with not adding all the content-farm
junk that one finds in Google.
IMHO, as far as old links on this article go, I'd say remove the
link that's for WingIDE specifically, but actually keep all the
rest, even the ones as old as 2000: those are good, content-deep
articles, are of historical interest, serve as examples of how to
compare IDEs, and given how slowly the Python IDE ecosystem seems
to be evolving, are still relevant. I found them all useful in my
current efforts to learn about Python IDEs. And some of these
articles don't surface in a Google search for "Python IDEs";
they're buried in "ten best" clickbait, so I think it's still
useful to have them collected in a list.
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
pydotorg-www mailing list
pydotorg-www@python.org <mailto:pydotorg-www@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www>
_______________________________________________
pydotorg-www mailing list
pydotorg-www@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
