On 16/09/2013 22:39, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 9/16/13 8:52 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with
IDE "official endorsement" was
more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei,
etc.) *use* VisualD or another
IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to
compiler/debugger integration).
If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely
to ever happen. Demanding that the core devs develop with specific
tools is ridiculous in concept. Would you switch because someone told
you to? Me either. I've been using vi(m) for about 20 years now. My
fingers know what to do without conscious control.. I don't have the
free time nor the desire to retrain myself like that.
I agree, I don't think it's a realistic to expect that. I was just
pointing out Manu's idea, not agreeing with it.
Just having them make an "official endorsement" of an IDE, or putting
it in the DLang github, but
without actually using it much, that I'm not sure what it would
achieve. The vast majority of other
D users will just use the IDE of their choice regardless. The number
of contributors to VisualD is
likely to not change much either, I suspect.
There's value in just elevating something to the label official.
Bundling with releases. Including on the downloads page. Increased
discussion and awareness. Etc.
Is that going to happen? Bundling VisualD with DMD releases? Or just
including it in the downloads page?
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
