On 13 Apr 2014, at 17:10, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
In my opinion, if you need to code in a particular style to do code
analyze the tools are not good enough.
I have conventions about how to format my code because it makes it
easier to read. Allowing to work with the code using simple text
utilities is a bonus.
And making a tool (based on a language parser) that can answer the
“questions” I have about my source code is infeasible, yet search
works amazingly well, and can be applied to revision history as well,
say I want to ask things like, “was this function ever called outside
module X”? For me, asking where a thing is defined or called from is a
subset of what I ask, hence why I never felt the need for a dedicated
tool to answer that single question, as it would come with a different
workflows, and while I may start by asking “where is this called”, I
may extend it to “where is it called with ‘true’ as second
argument” or similiar.
I’d also like to point out that a lot of things rely on naming or
formatting conventions without people calling it a tooling failure
(often the opposite). Take something like ARC, it relies on Cocoa
methods starting with ‘init’ or ‘new’ to return retained
objects.
I’m flabbergasted that you would refer to that as a big hack.
Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit :)
I think you missed the point of what I wrote.
I really don't want to argue about this. You're happy with using
TextMate, I'm happy with using TextMate and Xcode.
I would be happy to learn about better workflows, that is why I asked
you why you felt Xcode was better for working with the TextMate source
code (as a non-Xcode user myself).
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
textmate-dev@lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate-dev
