Michael Pavling wrote in post #978091: > On 27 January 2011 20:08, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> > wrote: >> Michael Pavling wrote in post #977960: >>> I *can* code without a debugger integrated (or indeed, at all) - but I >>> don't want to. >> >> If you were my client, and you responded "because I want it" when I >> asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn't get the feature. > > Now *that's* customer service! :-) (but poor economics [1])
It's excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they want, and do not spend money on things they don't want. The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you want something, you should still be able to explain *why* you want it, not just "because I want it". > >> I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for >> Rails is IMHO a bad choice. > > I think you need to reconsider the difference between "discourage" and > "deny"... denying your customers features you don't like is not the > same as discouraging them. It's not a question of features I don't like. It's a question of features that can't be justified. "Because I want it" is no justification. > >> So...have you used RDB at the command line? What do you not like about >> it? > > Yes I have; before I started using Netbeans.... and you call IDEs > "clunky"! :-) Some IDEs are clunky. Some aren't. I'm addicted to GUI tools, but I love RDB's command-line interface. Editor integration would be pleasant, but I don't really notice the lack very strongly. > >> I was actually a little surprised when I started working >> with Rails to find that IDEs provided no benefit -- but that *is* the >> case. > > You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really > understand what you mean: how can an IDE not "suit" Rails? Excellent question. Conventional IDEs tend to be designed with "heavy" languages like Java or Obj-C in mind, and it shows in the architecture. As I see it, the primary benefits of conventional IDEs include: * code completion (maybe -- non-IDE editors do this too) * code generation at a higher level of abstraction than the framework itself can provide * automation of builds and other repetitive tasks * visual GUI design * generally making up for usability shortcomings in the development environment itself As I see it, none of these features provide any significant benefit with Rails: * Code completion simply doesn't work well in a dynamic language like Ruby, particularly when you throw in Rails' heavy use of dynamic metaprogramming. * Rails doesn't rely on generated code in the sense that Java frameworks do. It does have generator scripts, but those are meant to be run once and the results customized, unlike (say) Struts where there are several sets of generated files that must be kept in sync for each build. * Build automation from the IDE isn't as critical in Rails either. Rails isn't compiled and doesn't have a complex build process, and anyway, there's Rake, which unlike (say) Ant has build scripts that humans can actually write. :) * Visual GUI design? Rails' GUI is HTML. Any Web developer who primarily uses a visual HTML tool deserves what he gets. * As for making up for shortcomings...well...Rails has its share, of course. But the framework was designed for ease of developer use without an IDE, and it shows. What shortcomings Rails has (from this perspective) don't seem to be fixable by the current crop of IDEs. So...Rails has no use for the big wins of IDEs. IDEs such as NetBeans are huge, resource-intensive programs. They cripple developers by encouraging dependence on them. They do not, as far as I can see, offer any advantage at all for Rails development. Why use them? I'll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn't provide? > It would help me if instead of saying "Don't use IDEs or you're all > cripples", you explained how you work front-to-end to highlight how > features of IDEs [2] don't give you any productivity benefit, while > using an IDE would hamper you. See above. :) I use KomodoEdit (a good project-aware editor) with Ruby and Haml syntax highlighting modules, along with GitX and 6 consoles open in iTerm. One runs script/server, one runs autotest, and the rest are available for random command-line tasks. > > [2] For me it's the debugger and source control integration that boost > my productivity (even while having to wait for the rest of the bloated > app to limp along with me :-) They're pretty much the only things I > want [3] in addition to the syntax highlighting that every beefy text > editor offers. NetBeans' Git plugin is fantastic. I just don't see it as fantastic enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE. BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn't you still use its Ruby support? And don't you think someone is likely to take up maintenance of the Rails tools? > > [3] "want" again, not "need". I want a black car over a pink one, I > don't *need* a black car ;-) But you can explain how black adds value for you -- "I find pink ugly", "I live in a cold climate and so I want a color that absorbs heat", whatever. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org mar...@marnen.org Sent from my iPhone -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
