And to continue Andrei's answer... all of these things need to work well in their own right, and that's what the community should be focused on. IDEs will happen naturally, but they should be composed of things that exist in isolation (IMO).
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Andrei <faithlessfri...@gmail.com> wrote: > To continue Michael's answer, I think it would be nice to collect list of > most important features that existing editors for Julia still lack and > think out what can be improved. So far I've seen following features: > > * integrated debugger -- currently work in progress (Gallium.jl), so it > may change soon > * better integration with REPL -- AFAIK, Emacs is the only editor that > has this integration (via ESS mode) so far > * code refactoring > * built-in documentation (in addition to Julia's own help system, I > suppose) > * built-in plots > > This doesn't look like a huge list. If this is what is needed for > non-programmers to work with Julia without pain, I'd say we have a good > chances to get it. > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Michael Francis <mdcfran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'd take the neutral ground here - for a language like Julia there is a >> continuum of users ranging from people happy to live in vim/emacs, through >> Developer IDEs to people looking for a 'Workbench'. This is dissimilar from >> many of the languages being argued about in this thread (C, Java, Lisp ... >> ), most never get to the point of the Workbench. I don't see it so much as >> a 'beginner programmer' as a person looking for a place to do their work, >> this is the beauty of the Workbench. >> >> I do think Julia would benefit from a best in class Developer IDE, for >> most traditional languages the Developer IDE is the high point - Intelij >> products take the chore of writing Java and make it bearable. The >> integration with the debugger, the package system and the ability to >> perform large scale refactors of code is stunning. It isn't essential for >> the success of the language but it helps. >> >> For Julia to thrive in the 'I have a job to do which isn't programming' >> community Julia is going to something closer to a Workbench ( R Studio, >> Matlab like) - Juno et al have attempted to blur the line towards a >> Workbench quite successfully. The notebook is ok, but not a perfect >> environment. I suspect this is the area where innovation can really happen >> and I see the glimmers of that already. >> >> Just my 2c >> >> On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 8:56:31 AM UTC-4, J Luis wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>>> I'm have many years of experience with Matlab and find its IDE a >>>>> can't-work-without-it tool. When one experiments its debugger the reason >>>>> becomes obvious. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Do you claim that Fortran, C and Perl never achieved success until >>>> someone wrote an IDE with a built-in debugger? ... Yeah, I know that's not >>>> what you want to say. Please understand that even if you find an IDE >>>> indispensable for Matlab, that doesn't make IDEs indispensable for all >>>> people for all languages. The fair thing to say about IDEs is that they are >>>> a really good idea to have because there are people who really really want >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>> >>> You have to admit that it's not fair to do such comparisons for the >>> simple fact that when those languages started (and long long time after) >>> IDEs like we are talking simply did not exist. Not that they do, you can't >>> live without them. I do but with pain and let just don't forget that we are >>> talking of general acceptance and not only the "Carnival of hackers". >>> >>> I've seen this discussion some here ago in the Octave mailing list. See >>> how much it was adopted (rather poorly in my view), specially on Windows. >>> >>> Joaquim >>> >>>> >
