Michael Pavling wrote in post #978091: > On 27 January 2011 20:08, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Michael Pavling wrote in post #977960: >>> I *can* code without a debugger integrated (or indeed, at all) - but I >>> don't want to. >> >> If you were my client, and you responded "because I want it" when I >> asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn't get the feature. > > Now *that's* customer service! :-) (but poor economics [1])
It's excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they want, and do not spend money on things they don't want. The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you want something, you should still be able to explain *why* you want it, not just "because I want it". > >> I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for >> Rails is IMHO a bad choice. > > I think you need to reconsider the difference between "discourage" and > "deny"... denying your customers features you don't like is not the > same as discouraging them. It's not a question of features I don't like. It's a question of features that can't be justified. "Because I want it" is no justification. > >> So...have you used RDB at the command line? What do you not like about >> it? > > Yes I have; before I started using Netbeans.... and you call IDEs > "clunky"! :-) Some IDEs are clunky. Some aren't. I'm addicted to GUI tools, but I love RDB's command-line interface. Editor integration would be pleasant, but I don't really notice the lack very strongly. > >> I was actually a little surprised when I started working >> with Rails to find that IDEs provided no benefit -- but that *is* the >> case. > > You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really > understand what you mean: how can an IDE not "suit" Rails? Excellent question. Conventional IDEs tend to be designed with "heavy" languages like Java or Obj-C in mind, and it shows in the architecture. As I see it, the primary benefits of conventional IDEs include: * code completion (maybe -- non-IDE editors do this too) * code generation at a higher level of abstraction than the framework itself can provide * automation of builds and other repetitive tasks * visual GUI design * generally making up for usability shortcomings in the development environment itself As I see it, none of these features provide any significant benefit with Rails: * Code completion simply doesn't work well in a dynamic language like Ruby, > It would help me if instead of saying "Don't use IDEs or you're all > cripples", you explained how you work front-to-end to highlight how > features of IDEs [2] don't give you any productivity benefit, while > using an IDE would hamper you. > > > [1] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wants+vs+needs > http://www.businessknowhow.com/marketing/wants.htm > > [2] For me it's the debugger and source control integration that boost > my productivity (even while having to wait for the rest of the bloated > app to limp along with me :-) They're pretty much the only things I > want [3] in addition to the syntax highlighting that every beefy text > editor offers. > > [3] "want" again, not "need". I want a black car over a pink one, I > don't *need* a black car ;-) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- 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.
