I hate to be negative, but the last time I used MonoDevelop (2.2), I couldn't get it removed fast enough. VS without the plugins is a golden chariot in comparison. At least SharpDevelop doesn't feel like a Linux UI designer put it together. Maybe I am alone, but I have a hard time using an application that looks horrible, no matter the features.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:26 AM, David Foley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<altnetseattle%[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]<altnetseattle%[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]<altnetseattle%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/altnetseattle?hl=en. > -- Ian Davis http://innovatian.com -- 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.
