On 14 September 2015 at 14:56, J Luis <jmfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
You can definitely live without them. Why are they suddenly so critical? I have been programming for 20 years and I do not use IDEs, nor do I know (personally) any other programmer who uses an IDE. The closest contact I have with IDEs is knowing that my wife learned Visual Studio in school. > 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. > > That is completely irrelevant. There are excellent reasons why Octave would not be adopted. It is almost a Matlab clone, but it cannot run a lot of Matlab programs and it is terribly slow. Octave now has a nice IDE, which is great, but to my knowledge, adoption of Octave has not yet sky-rocketed. But look, I am not saying that IDEs are useless. I am merely disputing the trivially falsifiable claim that the success of a programming language "depends" on an IDE. That is simply not true. An IDE is helpful, and other things are helpful. Daniel.
