I don't know if anyone mentioned yet that MonoDevelop supports .sln and .csproj files.
Really, I think that ReSharper (or, for the heathens, CodeRush) is the main reason to use Visual Studio (and by extension, Windows) for .net development. C# is kind of painful without it. If JetBrains made ReSharper for MonoDevelop... Note: I'm referring to normal applications that interact with the user via an http interface or a console, not ones that use a crufty proprietary flex-like UI layer. For those, VS may well be the best option. I have no idea. On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Chris Bilson wrote: > One interesting point I think this brings up is the lack of external (i.e., > _not_ in the IDE) tools for working with source code. Sometimes it would be > nice if you could access some of the power of something like resharper > outside of the IDE, in a script for example. That's part of how people using > vim today to work with ruby code for example aren't in the dark ages you > described: vim can be extended with (in ruby no less), and there are lots of > little tools for working with source code, so the programmer is a little more > in control of their environment (unfortunately, ctags is still part of that!) > > Meta-programming (programs that write/manipulate programs/source) is one area > where I think _we_ are in the dark ages with visual studio (watch a clojure > developer working in emacs sometime.) At Agile Open NW, Glenn had a session > to solicit feedback about .net tooling and this was one of the big weaknesses > that I think everyone there agreed on: why can't I use powershell or ironruby > inside of visual studio as a macro language for example? Or in the immediate > window. There are many times when this would come in handy. > > A few problems I see with IronLove though: > > 1. We need to add references and other compiler settings. > 2. This looks kind of like rake. Why not use rake? Rake can glob files and > make dependencies out of them (like foo.exe depends on **/*.cs.) If albacore > had a csc task that would help too. > > Is that kind of where you want to go with this? Replace proj files with rake > files that glob? What other ideas do you have for this? > > --c > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 23:13, Chris Tavares <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like you want to work the way we worked in C on Unix back in the day. > Spend a few weeks with VI, manually navigating your code by file (don't > forget to run ctags after a change!) and arguing with your manually > maintained makefiles and you'll really appreciate VS again. :-) > > -Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Justin Bozonier > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 7:49 PM > To: Seattle area Alt.Net > Subject: Screw You VS Project and Solution Files! > > What if we could develop .NET programs without any IDE... just Notepad > and a heart filled with hope? It'd be hawt that's what! > > I've been ruminating on why I feel so much more productive in Ruby > land and on how I can bring some of that to the MS development stack. > One of the big pain points for me is Visual Studio and all of its > project and solution files. > > At first I thought it was the fact Ruby doesn't compile.. That's nice > but not **huge**... Python compiles after all... Then I realized one > of the big things Visual Studio (along with R#) helps me do is find my > classes and files. I've seen leaning on Visual Studio cause an > enormous loss of cohesion across packages which forms a self- > reinforcing cycle of needing even more Visual Studio packagement. > > This is an experiment I've been working with over the past couple > research days that was a thought of what could be done to reduce that > pain. It's a Ruby script you can run in a folder to compile all c# > files and execute them as though they were a set of scripts and > modules. It's VERY simplistic and I only consider it a proof of > concept but still I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this. > Ideally, I'd like to be able to develop an entire C# application only > using this technique. > > You can get a rough idea of what's going on inside the tests but I did > a bad job testing. So ask questions if you got 'em. > > Anyone else with thoughts on this or other ways of doing truly > "Alt" .NET development? :) > > The git: https://github.com/jcbozonier/IronLove > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Seattle area Alt.Net" 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/altnetseattle?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Seattle area Alt.Net" 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/altnetseattle?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Seattle area Alt.Net" 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/altnetseattle?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Seattle area Alt.Net" 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/altnetseattle?hl=en.
