On 29 January 2011 14:59, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > I do understand the difference. I also understand that people think > they want things that, when questioned, they cannot explain why they > want nor provide any justification for. That's the same as saying "I > want a pony": sure, you may want it, but is it worth spending time and > effort on?
Again, just because people *can't* explain, doesn't make them wrong in their desire. It may make it harder (or impossible) to agree with (as a "rational" developer/programmer, with all the borderline-autistic traits we possess), but it doesn't mean some fundamental psychological operation isn't happening in their brains. > You waste your clients' time and money on feature bloat? :) Yup - if that's what they want... even if I don't like it (I have produced some websites that I think look *awful* and/or have music playing in the background - because that's what *they* want despite my protestations). It's their money... I'd prefer to produce something I'd like too, but at the end of the day... >> sometimes people *can't* justify their >> wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason). > > Can't justify their wants? Example? I can't explain why I want a girlfriend with certain physical characteristics (wanted... I'm married now!) - hair colour, height, skin-tone, etc. I know what I like, but I don't know why... given a choice, I'll prefer one over another. > (Note that I think "because it's ugly" is in many cases a valid > justification.) ...so you won't accept "because" as an answer, but you will accept "because I like/dislike it" - I think we're saying almost the same thing, and just boring anyone else reading this. I think your argument would be more distinct from mine if you wanted people to give you checklists of *why* they like/dislike (which seems to be what you *are* asking me re: IDEs! :-) >> Interesting.. but largely personal preference [1]... what you see as >> "the primary benefits of conventional IDEs" is probably different to >> what others may list. > > OK, now I'm getting upset I'm sorry - I certainly don't want to upset you; and I didn't disagree with you. I read your answer, and it was long, and I will have to read through it a few more times to fully digest it. > instead of actually responding to my answer, you simply handwaved > it. If you disagree with what I wrote, please tell me what you disagree > with. I didn't disagree - I agree that the list of things you think make an IDE, and the things that list is good/bad for is the list you believe is correct. All I've said (ever said) is that other people may have other opinions, and they can make their own minds up. I asked for the clarification, because everytime someone mentions using an IDE in their Rails development, you say "DON'T USE IDEs FOR RAILS!" and accuse people of having marginal handicaps because of the tools they use. > I consider an IDE to start somewhere above a project-aware editor so that's pretty similar territory to my definition then... >>> 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? >> >> I've already said - I want VCS and debugging integration. > > So do I, other things being equal. But those two features alone are not > enough for me to incur the overhead of something like NetBeans. But they are for *me* :-) However, if a "decent editor" got integrated VCS (specifically Mercurial, but I'd consider switching to Git or something else if it was what was integrated), debugging, and (much lower priority for me, but my third-most-used feature) test running (and through the other features, test debugging) then I'd drop the bloaty Netbeans like a shot and jump to it. All the other features, whether I use them or not, are just "gravy". >>> NetBeans' Git plugin is fantastic. I just don't see it as fantastic >>> enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE. >> >> Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin *is* fantastic enough to >> saddle myself with the rest of it... personal preference again! > > Or the fact that Mercurial is harder to use than Git and needs one more > crutch. :) Strange. I don't think Mercurial is harder than Git - I don't think either of them are hard... I'm happy to use command line hg... I just prefer to have it in my editor (seeing what changes I have made to a line at a glance in the editor is valuable to me). > Seriously, I wonder if you'd feel this way if you were using Git. GitX > is a marvelous standalone GUI tool; I am not sure that anything > comparable exists for Mercurial. I don't want standalone tools... I have the command line for that. I want it in my editor pane. >>> 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? >> >> Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don't really use the >> "Rails" features anyway. > > THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU USING NETBEANS?!? Because it integrates Mercurial and Debugging very nicely (have I not mentioned that? ;-) > Perhaps I shouldn't have shouted that; it just seems to me that you're > saying you want to use a big heavy IDE that you don't use 90% of the > features of. How can this be sane? What if it isn't sane (for you)? So what? How does that affect anyone apart from me? *I* am more productive because things suit me better - so it's not insane from my point of view. As an aside (and a not ideal analogy): I drive a big bloaty 4x4 for the 2-days a year the British weather may demand it... possibly not sane on an average day. But as fate would have it, shortly before Christmas I had to get to the hospital with a very ill baby daughter at 2am in a blizzard - the ambulance couldn't get to us, but with chains on, I could get to them. I'm happy to bear the extra expense and bloat of this machine for the features it offers me that I *can't* get elsewhere. Being able to get out of my village in almost any conditions is a feature I'm not willing to give up, and neither is debugging ;-) >> It just seems disappointing to be at the end >> of life for a product that's been getting better and better. > > How would you know? As you've pointed out, you don't even really use > it. *sigh* The product, Netbeans, has been getting better - the Mercurial integration is quite new, and the debugging has gotten simpler in newer releases. So what if I don't use the "crutches" of Rake integration, etc? Does that obviate my opinion of the product? (if so, since you use *none* of them, how would you know any about it... (I'm not trying to be snide; just saying we're on the same ground - if you try to undermine me with "how would you know?", you're falling too) >> To know >> it is never likely to get better > > WTF? NB is actively looking for someone to take it over. Frankly, I'd > trust a group of Rails enthusiasts to make it better When they find them... >> still was just a spur to me to look >> around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I've been >> using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations >> that I shall post separately) > > Good. Then also please consider which of your "showstoppers" really > have to be showstoppers. Please stop asking me to stop liking what I like... it's me getting upset now :-( >> [1] I think we should all agree that we will *always* _know_ for >> certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best. > > No. There are times when I am not sure. I don't believe you... I don't think *you* ever make a choice for yourself that you think is worse than the alternatives you could have had (and don't think about starting to wave altruism around ;-) >> We should also know we'll *never* convince someone that made a >> different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for >> them than their choice. > > Again no. I have done this many times. hmmm... or maybe you just brow-beat them into submission rather than "convincing" them - is it the same thing? :-p -- 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.
