I'm still thinking that - if Geany wants to call itself an IDE - we
should allow the maximum of build configurations because there is about
an infinite amount of that out there. I can agree with grouping it, but
*limiting* it intentionally for no obvious reasons (the advanced parts
can be hidden until "advanced settings" is checked") defeats the goal of
being an IDE.
Before the v1 build system was committed into trunk, I didn't even dare
to call it an IDE, because build settings belong to it. This, and an
integrated debugger, is what an IDE seperates from a simple text editor
(hence my remark in the very first sentence).
The current dialog is a bit bloated indeed. I could imagine to solve it
by hiding advanced settings (like the working directory), by providing
an assitant which leads through the configuration or by a multi-tabbed
interfaced to group similar build-system settings.
I must admit that I worked a bit with visual studio in the meantime. I'm
not saying this bloody bloat thing (it's really huge, but it runs fast
and has a lot of features[I probably used only 2% of it]) is the way to
go, but (as I mentioned) its integrated debugger and build settings is
what I expect from an IDE.
The "integrated debugger" is a plugin. Fine. But the limited build
settings it had before committing the branch basically made it a text
editor, not an IDE. I now more or less depend on the new capabilities of
the build settings, so if you remove features I'm going to be dependant
on the bloody terminal (VTE) feature again which simply sucks for just
building a project.
Best regards.
_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
