Re: "Visual" IDE?
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What exactly are your objections to Emacs' compile-mode and > gdb-mode? I find them to be quite useful. Perhaps you could write > some extensions that would make them more useful to you. I used to use CodeWarrior back when I was a Mac user (yes, I was), and I've since found Emacs a far better development environment. *Sometimes*, but not often, I find that it's nice to be able to browse your data graphically at run-time, and in those cases I whip out ddd. The only development envt I was impressed much by on the Mac side was MCL (Macintosh Common Lisp). For one thing, CodeWarrior and all of the Mac options were far too limited in what you could do to automate your development processes. There is no way I could do the things I've done since under UNIX. Most of the graphical stuff to me was just fluff. I didn't fully realize that until I had a number of *tremendously* frustrating experiences. I haven't had any aggravations/disappointments to compare since I started using Debian. To each their own. -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Visual" IDE?
On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:29:50PM -0400, SEGV wrote: > I'm sitting here looking at my unused copy of Visual Studio 5.0 for > Windows, and thinking of the pathetic UNIX IDEs I have used in the past > two years. > > - SparcWorks on Solaris > - Softbench on HP-UX > - ladebug etc. on Digital UNIX ... FWIW, ladebug is a debugger (e.g., gdb or dbx), not an IDE. > I understand that Visual Studio was created for the lowest common > denominator (that's a fact, not an opinion), and that UNIX programmers > are more comfortable with makefiles and command lines. But you have to > admit that Visual Studio, and Metrowerks Codewarrior, are great IDEs. > > My question is, "Why is there nothing similar on UNIX?" ... have you tried "Code Crusader"? http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/jcc/ maybe this is what you're looking for... --andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Visual" IDE?
I believe the `Cygnus Foundry', by Cygnus, is a UNIX-based IDE - not certain, though. But like most commercial UNIX software, it costs a pretty penny. -c SEGV> I'm sitting here looking at my unused copy of Visual Studio 5.0 for > Windows, and thinking of the pathetic UNIX IDEs I have used in the past > two years. > > - SparcWorks on Solaris > - Softbench on HP-UX > - ladebug etc. on Digital UNIX > > Even XEmacs with Sparcworks integration doesn't do it for me. So > basically I use XEmacs to edit my source and make files, and the command > line to compile. I debug with whatever debugger is best for the platform > I am using that day. > > I understand that Visual Studio was created for the lowest common > denominator (that's a fact, not an opinion), and that UNIX programmers > are more comfortable with makefiles and command lines. But you have to > admit that Visual Studio, and Metrowerks Codewarrior, are great IDEs. > > My question is, "Why is there nothing similar on UNIX?" > > Perhaps I simply haven't stumbled over it yet. But the development tools > Sun, HP, etc. sell are the most hacked together things I've ever seen. > The crippled widgets don't even cut/paste properly, the layout is > atrocious, the GUI is nothing more than a debugging shell with renamed > buttons for its functions, etc. > > Even the free tools are not much better. Perhaps that's because they are > volunteer efforts. [But then why can't Sun do better?] Perhaps it's > because everyone's read "No Silver Bullet" and moved on to the > "essential" tasks of development, leaving the "accidental" tasks like > IDE behind. > > If I'm missing out on an excellent free/commercial IDE, please let me > know. If not, why can't one be built? Make a clone of Visual Studio, > fixing its annoyances at the same time. Make it fully graphical for the > neophyte developer, but unleash the power beneath for the scripting > guru. Build it out of standard components: GNU compilers, make, CVS, > etc. Use the GTK toolkit, eventually provide a visual GUI editor. > > Does this sound farfetched? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just trying to feel > this idea out. Is there a project like this going on now? If not, is > this an idea whose time has come? > > Please feel free to email me with any thoughts on this. Thank you for > your time. > > -- > SEGV > Homepage: http://www.cgocable.net/~mlepage/ > Java Game Engine: http://www.cgocable.net/~mlepage/YAGE/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Visual" IDE?
Even XEmacs with Sparcworks integration doesn't do it for me. So basically I use XEmacs to edit my source and make files, and the command line to compile. I debug with whatever debugger is best for the platform I am using that day. What exactly are your objections to Emacs' compile-mode and gdb-mode? I find them to be quite useful. Perhaps you could write some extensions that would make them more useful to you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
