On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:20:23 +0800, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I should have been clearer. Based on the research I've done about > NetBeans, and on how the program is marketed, it seems that its > Eclipse-like nature and what I understand to be a heavy JRuby > implementation are not really the way I want to go about Rails > development. I might still try it, but I believe (if the info I have is > accurate) that it is the wrong direction to go for Rails, at least for > the way I like to work. > not sure what you mean by a heavy JRuby implementation. You can select which ruby to use. Out of the box it installs JRuby, but you can switch this to normal ruby easy enough. >> > I wasn't exactly talking about problems. I never really had any > *problems* as such with Rails and Eclipse. It just got to feel like > trying to run wearing ski boots after a while, and I didn't like that. > I had that feeling trying to use Eclipse for both C++ and Java. I think it is an offshoot of the fact it is written in Java, whereas (and I might be corrected here) Netbeans is written in C++. > I'll turn around the question: why NetBeans? What makes such an > apparently heavy IDE worthwhile for Rails? I'd be very interested to > know. > We were already using Netbeans for our Java dev, so it was natural to try it for Rails. The debugging is pretty good, and the project management side seems better than Eclipse (that said, I haven't tried eclipse for several years now). I guess mostly, once you are using it, there isn't anything that is annoying me enough to want to try something else. Cheers Simon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
