Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 08:36:38PM +1000, Peter Ludwig wrote: > > > Now, I have a few problems with it. > > 1) No "IDE" for the compiler. > > Try Emacs or XEmacs. Don't be mislead by the fact that they call Emacs > an editor - it's far, far more than a mere editor. It has support for > compilation and interactive debugging within an Emacs session, and has > hooks for using version control systems and syntax highlighting for most > programming languages you're likely to care about. > > I think there's also an IDE being built for GNOME (called GIDE or > something) but personally I can't see any reason why I'd use it rather > than Emacs.
I kinda like to see an IDE myself. I know emacs is powerfull (I've got xemacs on my sys and am still experimenting with it), but its still an editor with a *lot* of fancy features. If emacs could do what those of us who are familar with IDE's in the DOS/Win world, then we wouldn't need DDD for example. If you can merge DDD capability into emacs *then* I'd use it. In the meantime, I've got my fingers crossed for the gIDE project. No offense intended against emacs lovers. -- Ed C.