[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Agree. Rodeo looks very promising and it is open source. I would be grateful if anybody ported it to Julia. On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:03:52 PM UTC+1, Tomas Mikoviny wrote: > > maybe someone with more javascript insight can get inspired by this python > IDE one day :) > > https://github.c

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

It looks very nice!! The basic interface looks pretty much with Rstudio. Thanks for sharing! (and for keeping this thread alive heehhe) Best, Charles On 30 October 2015 at 16:03, Tomas Mikoviny wrote: > maybe someone with more javascript insight can get inspired by this python > IDE one day :)

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

maybe someone with more javascript insight can get inspired by this python IDE one day :) https://github.com/yhat/rodeo On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 5:12:22 AM UTC+2, Deb Midya wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks in advance. > > I am new to Julia and using Julia-0.3.7 on Windows 8. > > I am looking f

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Here's the current state of my Gtk-based IDE prototype. It's very buggy but there's some basic things work. https://gfycat.com/YawningLeftCaterpillar It seems doable to make a decent IDE this way, although it's a lot of work and there's a few challenges. Currently I can't set fonts, there's al

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Maybe we can use Mechanical Turk to get handwritten assembly code. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly how this is going to get solved, but it obviously has to get fixed – we can't be stuck on LLVM 3.3 forever, and getting Cxx and Gallium in a state where you don't have to jump through so many hoops to

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

That is astonishingly good news. What are the heroes doing behind the scenes? Replacing LLVM's innards with bionic components? --Tim On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:40:06 PM Stefan Karpinski wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Uwe Fechner > > wrote: > > Keno's Cxx.jl " currently requ

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Uwe Fechner wrote: > Keno's Cxx.jl " currently requires the head version of LLVM. This is > fragile, but furthermore the compilation with > the newest version of LLVM is very slow. These are issues that are > currently being addressed (see: > https://github.com/Ju

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Sep 23, 2015 11:27 AM, "Uwe Fechner" wrote: > > Julia, including 0.4RC2 is using LLVM 3.5 as default. Cxx.jl needs LLVM 3.7 or LLVM 3.8SVN (I am not sure, but it does not work with older LLVM versions). > Julia can be compiled against LLVM 3.7 (and sometimes also against LLVM SVN), but then the

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Julia, including 0.4RC2 is using LLVM 3.5 as default. Cxx.jl needs LLVM 3.7 or LLVM 3.8SVN (I am not sure, but it does not work with older LLVM versions). Julia can be compiled against LLVM 3.7 (and sometimes also against LLVM SVN), but then the just-in-time compilation of Julia is much slower t

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

[Sorry, again, off-topic, a follow-up question about Cxx.jl and some extra.] On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:30:45 AM UTC, Uwe Fechner wrote: > > Keno's Cxx.jl " currently requires the head version of LLVM. This is > fragile, but furthermore the compilation with > the newest version of LLV

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Keno's Cxx.jl " currently requires the head version of LLVM. This is fragile, but furthermore the compilation with the newest version of LLVM is very slow. These are issues that are currently being addressed (see: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9336) but probably not fixed before Ju

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Sorry, kind of of-topic for the thread, mostly about Cxx.jl/C++: On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 8:05:07 AM UTC, Uwe Fechner wrote: > > I like QT a lot. There is more then one open source, QT based IDE out > there, e.g. QT Creator. > QT has a GUI builder, that is much better then the GUI builder

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Le lundi 21 septembre 2015 à 06:05 -0700, Uwe Fechner a écrit : > Did anyone ask Forio if they would change the license (as they are > obviously not longer interested in the project)? What's the problem with the license of Julia Studio? AFAICT that's a vanilla GPL3. Since Forio isn't interested in

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On their homepage they say: "As a desktop replacement for Julia Studio, Forio recommends Juno " Uwe Am Montag, 21. September 2015 18:49:13 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel Carrera: > > How do you know they are not interested? > > On 21 September 2015 at 15:05, Uwe Fechner > wrote: >

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

How do you know they are not interested? On 21 September 2015 at 15:05, Uwe Fechner wrote: > Did anyone ask Forio if they would change the license (as they are > obviously not longer > interested in the project)? > > Uwe > > Am Montag, 21. September 2015 13:52:57 UTC+2 schrieb Christof Stocker:

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Did anyone ask Forio if they would change the license (as they are obviously not longer interested in the project)? Uwe Am Montag, 21. September 2015 13:52:57 UTC+2 schrieb Christof Stocker: > > I did consider looking into that but as soon as I saw the license I ran > for my life. Its a similar

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I did consider looking into that but as soon as I saw the license I ran for my life. Its a similar issue with Julietta. Although what is an issue to me doesn't have to be an issue to others On 2015-09-21 13:48, Steven Sagaert wrote: +1 & to add to Uwe's post: AFAIK JuliaStudio is based on Qt (

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

+1 & to add to Uwe's post: AFAIK JuliaStudio is based on Qt (& QtCreator I believe). I thought that JuliaStudio was a nice start (also based on QtCreator). I wish a group would fork it and develop it further in the direction of RStudio. On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:08:23 AM UTC+2, Chris

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I'd be interested in a Julia IDE that runs directly in the browser. I played with CodeMirror before as a basic editor and it supports Julia syntax , which is cool. Wikipedia has a comparison of JS-based editors

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Thanks for the list. Some people have raised concerns about Atom's speed. Besides that, I think that the other features either exist in Juno (REPL, smart editor) or can be implemented in Atom. I am just starting to read the Atom documentation, so I can't begin to guess whether they are easy or hard

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Might be nice to be able to bind a single ^D (EOF) to workspace() so that we can reset easily. On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-7, Scott Jones wrote: > > workspace() should give a new REPL environment in Julia. > > On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 4:34:41 PM UTC-4, Christof Stocker

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

workspace() should give a new REPL environment in Julia. On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 4:34:41 PM UTC-4, Christof Stocker wrote: > > To me (and I realize that is biased) the things I like most about RStudio > / Spider are > >- they feel very fast and responsive (then again I do love Intell

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

To me (and I realize that is biased) the things I like most about RStudio / Spider are * they feel very fast and responsive (then again I do love Intellij IDEA which can be very slow). * an integrated REPL that is at least as good as the standard one (i.e. auto-completion and such) * a

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I have never used RStudio (or R, or IDEs). What features does it have that you would like to see in a Julia IDE? Cheers, Daniel. On 18 September 2015 at 10:08, Christof Stocker wrote: > I would be a huge fan of an RStudio like Julia IDE > > On 2015-09-18 10:05, Uwe Fechner wrote: > > I like QT

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Just out of curiosity, I tabulated the first 30 items in this forum (I did it last night, so I'm already a bit out of date): The average nr of posts per item is 11, with a standard deviation of 23. The average number of views is 227, with a standard deviation of 472. This IDE topic had 129 po

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I didn't think of gedit. I hadn't realized that it is cross-platform. Gedit is based on GtkSourceView, which means that it does not natively support code folding. Someone made a plugin, but I cannot find a clear answer on whether the plugin actually works or not. My understanding is that gedit is

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Aside from my general concerns about performance, I'm on board with the idea of Atom (never having tried it myself). But with regards to being too down on a Gtk-based IDE, did you consider gedit? It seems to have Windows and OSX packages available. Disclaimer: I have no practical experience wit

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I would be a huge fan of an RStudio like Julia IDE On 2015-09-18 10:05, Uwe Fechner wrote: I like QT a lot. There is more then one open source, QT based IDE out there, e.g. QT Creator. QT has a GUI builder, that is much better then the GUI builders for GTK (in my opinion). And you can use the j

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I like QT a lot. There is more then one open source, QT based IDE out there, e.g. QT Creator. QT has a GUI builder, that is much better then the GUI builders for GTK (in my opinion). And you can use the java-script like QML language for building the user interface, if you want to. Tutorial for

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

There are no Qt bindings for Julia yet. I also don't know what text editing component is provided by Qt or what its features are. I began working with Gtk in part because the Julia Gtk bindings seem to be the most developed. Is there a reason you like Qt besides it being cross-platform? On 17 Se

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 9:09:15 PM UTC-4, SrAceves wrote: > > What about Qt? RStudio is fantastic: Qt based, multi-platoform. Everything > anyone ever wanted of an IDE. > Does it support C, C++, Python (2 & 3), Java, JS, and Julia (as well as large Unicode text files)? If not, it mo

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

What about Qt? RStudio is fantastic: Qt based, multi-platoform. Everything anyone ever wanted of an IDE. El martes, 15 de septiembre de 2015, 8:13:04 (UTC-5), Daniel Carrera escribió: > > > Last night I started experimenting with Gtk, and started making a sketch > of what a Julia IDE might look

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I vote for creating a julia-tangents group. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > I think that julia-users is ok as a it's been used, although some of the > discussions can get a bit long and tangential (case in point). I've been > contemplating creating a julia-help list th

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I think that julia-users is ok as a it's been used, although some of the discussions can get a bit long and tangential (case in point). I've been contemplating creating a julia-help list that is more specifically for people have problems or confusion. Kind of waiting to see if we decide to switch t

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

While I do tune out some of the long discussions, there's also a subset that I find quite engaging. I would hate it if julia-users just became about short requests for help installing a package or fixing a performance problem---there would be little to keep the interest of people who've been the

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I'm not necessarily saying google groups is fundamentally bad for discussion, e.g. if you set up a daily digest and such, just that for most people here it's not the expectation. For the most part every email you send to -users ends up in the inbox of every Julia dev and many more in the community.

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 17:33, Mike Innes wrote: > > Quick meta-note about this thread: I think it's important to emphasise > that the julia-users list isn't designed to handle this kind of open-ended > discussion. It's not that discussion is bad per se, but this list has a lot > of subscribers w

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

How much RAM is available on your system? One of the people I'm mentoring was going to move to Atom from vim, but he said it was way too slow, but it worked fine for the other person. Turned out, he had 4GB RAM, she had 8GB RAM, other things roughly equal. (It was fine for me also, with 16GB on

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hey folks, If you're interested in Juno/Atom you might like to check out the demos I just published which give an idea of some of the UI work we've done so far. Like any tool, Atom certainly isn't going to be Everybody's Everything, but you might be pleasantly

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 15:57, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > Look up GitSavy if you want git integration in Sublime. > > I guess different people have different tolerances to latency. I try atom > over and over because it is open source and I want it to be the best but > everytime it feels like ru

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Look up GitSavy if you want git integration in Sublime. I guess different people have different tolerances to latency. I try atom over and over because it is open source and I want it to be the best but everytime it feels like running through syrup.

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

You're probably missing dependencies. Check the files in dependency walker. Or use the WinRPM.jl package which handles them automatically. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:06 AM -0700, "STAR0SS" wrote: Talking about GtkSourceView, shouldn't these binaries work on windows ? They seems to be valid wind

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Talking about GtkSourceView, shouldn't these binaries work on windows ? They seems to be valid windows dll's but Julia gives me a "The specified module could not be found." if I try to open them with dlopen. http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=mingw64%28libgtksourceview-3.0-1.dll%

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree that Atom has some speed issues. With so much buy-in though I'm hoping that things get better on that front. Also be careful about what packages you have installed. Atom makes it really easy to subscribe to events on things like cursor moves, which can slow things down a lot if packages do

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 14:57, Tom Breloff wrote: > Now that Sublime has been mentioned a couple times... that's what I use > exclusively now. I do all my code in Sublime Text 3, and then have a > separate window with a julia prompt and a terminal which I do any > git-stuff. > > My question... c

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Now that Sublime has been mentioned a couple times... that's what I use exclusively now. I do all my code in Sublime Text 3, and then have a separate window with a julia prompt and a terminal which I do any git-stuff. My question... can anyone convince me why I should switch to Atom? Everyone see

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 14:17, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > It was just an example. Everything is slow, startup is slow, marking text > lags behind the cursor, even pressing Ctrl + Shift + P has a > noticeable delay. When you are used to something like Sublime where > everything is instantaneous

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

It was just an example. Everything is slow, startup is slow, marking text lags behind the cursor, even pressing Ctrl + Shift + P has a noticeable delay. When you are used to something like Sublime where everything is instantaneous it is basically unusable. And yes, the fact that if you want to

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 13:50, Christof Stocker wrote: > This is very subjective of course. First of all I don't like working in a > browser, so Jupyter and Rodeo are not tools that I use. > Sure, but Atom is a desktop application. Ok, it is derived from a browser, but I used Atom for over a ye

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 13:34, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > They are pathetically slow. Can Atom open files larger than 2 MB now? Why would I want that? I use Atom for programming. I would never write a program with 60 million lines in one file. Sure, I have large data files, but it never occu

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

This is very subjective of course. First of all I don't like working in a browser, so Jupyter and Rodeo are not tools that I use. That being said, I do very much understand the Notebook appeal for literate programming. However, concerning literate programming I do prefer the Rmd approach. Then

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

They are pathetically slow. Can Atom open files larger than 2 MB now?

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Why? On 17 September 2015 at 12:09, Christof Stocker wrote: > I am just happy and thankful that people work on the IDE side of Julia. > But I have to admit that the whole web-based IDE movement annoys the heck > out of me. > > > On 2015-09-17 11:31, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > On 17 September 20

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I am just happy and thankful that people work on the IDE side of Julia. But I have to admit that the whole web-based IDE movement annoys the heck out of me. On 2015-09-17 11:31, Daniel Carrera wrote: On 17 September 2015 at 11:17, Eric Forgy > wrote: I agre

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I've only started digging around the CoffeeScript. Mostly snooping around atom-julia-client. I want to understand the communication between node.js and Julia and how the console works. I agree. This is so cool it makes me want to learn CoffeeScript just so I >> can understand how it works :) >>

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 17 September 2015 at 11:17, Eric Forgy wrote: > I agree. This is so cool it makes me want to learn CoffeeScript just so I > can understand how it works :) > Yes, indeed. The more I learn about Atom's guts, the cooler it gets. Did you know that Atom is actually Chromium with a different skin,

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I mean without installation (no need of root permission). On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > What's a portable version? You mean like in a USB stick? > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > On 17 September 2015 at 11:18, Sisyphuss wrote: > >> I tried Atom since Monday. I hope that Atom

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

What's a portable version? You mean like in a USB stick? Cheers, Daniel. On 17 September 2015 at 11:18, Sisyphuss wrote: > I tried Atom since Monday. I hope that Atom will have a portable version > soon. > > > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 11:05:53 AM UTC+2, Nils Gudat wrote: >> >> I've be

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I tried Atom since Monday. I hope that Atom will have a portable version soon. On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 11:05:53 AM UTC+2, Nils Gudat wrote: > > I've been using the Atom client for a couple of weeks now an I think it's > brilliant - there's a lot of active development going on current

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree. This is so cool it makes me want to learn CoffeeScript just so I can understand how it works :) On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 5:05:53 PM UTC+8, Nils Gudat wrote: > > I've been using the Atom client for a couple of weeks now an I think it's > brilliant - there's a lot of active deve

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I've been using the Atom client for a couple of weeks now an I think it's brilliant - there's a lot of active development going on currently with many quick bugfixes almost daily and lots of great mid- to long-term feature additions planned. It'd be great if the community could focus their deve

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Just FYI, Geany an IDE based on Scintilla has a plugin (overview) that provides a minimap capability, there is no need to add the capability to Scintilla itself. Cheers Lex On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:21:31 AM UTC+10, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I just deleted my 'Julia

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I hope you will channel some of your energy into that project then! (Disclaimer: we would be direct beneficiaries of any Julia IDE improvements based on Atom! ;) )

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hi everyone, I just deleted my 'Julia IDE' repository on Github. After spending a while looking at Atom vs Scintilla vs GtkSourceView, I thin Juno already made the right choice in starting with Atom. I suspect that it would be easier to add IDE-like features to Atom, than to add code folding to Gt

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:19:58 AM Stefan Karpinski wrote: > In theory both fast native callbacks and fast direct data transfer could be > done in Chromium. You could allow JavaScript to directly call ccallable > functions, which Julia can generate via cfunction; you can present numeric >

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

It would be great to see a demo of how well this works the reproduce the kind of performance you can get with, e.g., ImageView (which in reality is no speed demon, yet): using ImageView include(Pkg.dir("ImageView", "test", "test4d.jl")) ImageView.view(img) Now drag the sliders and watch how res

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

In theory both fast native callbacks and fast direct data transfer could be done in Chromium. You could allow JavaScript to directly call ccallable functions, which Julia can generate via cfunction; you can present numeric data as typed JavaScript arrays sharing memory with Julia arrays. I'm not su

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Aside from the oddities of websockets I'm not seeing much in the way of an issue. Though I'm generating custom events from d3 which get get sent back to Julia. Major interactions are defined in a declarative form in JSON ( and yes are handled by JavaScript ) but where events are relevant to Juli

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I don't think docking is a big deal, at least it would be relatively easy to have a basic configurable layout. Multiple cursors might be feasible. You need an array of cursors (integers basically), and when the user does an action you can loop through them and apply the action at each position

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Should have added: zero-copy ways of getting big piles of data to the browser. With Gtk, you have direct in-memory access to the display; when e.g. Gadfly wants to display in the browser, it writes an svg file and asks the browser to parse it. That said, once you get the data into the browser,

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Low-latency callbacks are the main issue, AFAICT. (Assuming you'd rather write your callbacks in julia than javascript.) --Tim On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 07:28:57 AM Michael Francis wrote: > @Tim - can you point me at the gap between Gtk and browser based, I'm > interested as I've spent a

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

@Tim - can you point me at the gap between Gtk and browser based, I'm interested as I've spent a fair amount of time in d3/Escher recently and with the correct wrapping seems to do most of what I was looking for. We can take this to a different thread. On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:0

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hi Tim, I don't know what docked plotting is, but I suspect I don't want it. I like plots in free-floating windows. When I talked about docking I was referring to other parts of the UI. Things like the editor, the REPL, the variable browser, and online help. Think of this screenshot of Spyder: ht

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

If the IDE is supposed to include "docked" plotting, then (at least currently) you're going to get a big loss of functionality if you're using a browser compared to what's now possible in Gtk. That said, I don't see any reason that you really need docked plotting. Best, --Tim On Wednesday, Se

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hi all, So... I spent more time looking into how to write a Julia IDE... and I'm not sure it makes sense to write one. I have been investigating the features of Scintilla and GtkSourceView. These are the most obvious components we could use to make the source code editor. But neither one has enou

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

, September 15, 2015 5:06 PM > *To:* julia-users > *Subject:* Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia > > > > Isn't JuliaBox a registered trade mark? > > > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:50:29 AM UTC+2, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > &g

RE: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sisyphuss Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:06 PM To: julia-users Subject: Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia Isn't JuliaBox a registered trade mark? On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:50:29 AM UTC+2, Daniel Carrera wrote: Hi everyone, I just fin

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Isn't JuliaBox a registered trade mark? On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 1:50:29 AM UTC+2, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I just finished putting together a basic mockup of what a Julia IDE might > look like. I'm calling it JuliaBox: > > Source: https://github.com/dcarrera/JuliaBo

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hi everyone, I just finished putting together a basic mockup of what a Julia IDE might look like. I'm calling it JuliaBox: Source: https://github.com/dcarrera/JuliaBox Screenshot: https://github.com/dcarrera/JuliaBox/blob/master/screenshots/screenshot-01.png This is literally just a shell and

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Crap... It looks like I accidentally hit "send" before my email was finished. Anyway, here it goes again: Last night I started experimenting with Gtk, and started making a sketch of what a Julia IDE might look like. In the process I am writing down a list of things that are probably needed before

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Last night I started experimenting with Gtk, and started making a sketch of what a Julia IDE might look like. In the process I am writing down a list of things that are probably needed before a Julia IDE getting a list of things that probably need to exist before a Julia IDE can be completed. Th

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Gtk, the code isn't published but it's very similar to Julietta: https://github.com/tknopp/Julietta.jl

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

GtkSourceView seems nice but I never managed to get it work on windows. The wrapper might be a bit outdated too. On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:14:53 PM UTC+2, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Ooops, stupid question. I see that the screenshot actually shows the > source code. You are using Gtk (yay

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 14 September 2015 at 17:16, Isaiah Norton wrote: > There is a project called GtkSourceView that extends Gtk+ with a source >> editor > > > See also https://github.com/tknopp/Julietta.jl > > I think Julietta is exactly the right idea, but it looks abandoned (no wok in a year) and I don't like t

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 9:44:07 AM UTC-4, Andrei Zh 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: > > *

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Agreed about the license... I'd prefer to have a community-supported IDE with MIT license. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > I just had a look at Julietta: > > "For code conributions: As the original author of this work I want to keep > right to spin off a commercial vers

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

> > The list looks sensible. Can you clarify what you mean by code > refactoring? How do you think we should do built-in plots when we currently > suffer from too much diversity in plotting APIs? Gadfly is popular, but I > don't like it and it is immature, so I use PyPlot. > Just to clarify, this

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Nice. Are you familiar with Julietta? https://github.com/tknopp/Julietta.jl --Tim On Monday, September 14, 2015 06:07:52 AM jonathan.bie...@alumni.epfl.ch wrote: > Instead of complaining like I usually do I've been making a rough prototype > of IDE for Julia in Julia, and it seems to me that in

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I just had a look at Julietta: "For code conributions: As the original author of this work I want to keep right to spin off a commercial version of this software." :-( Daniel. On 14 September 2015 at 17:16, Isaiah Norton wrote: > There is a project called GtkSourceView that extends Gtk+ with

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

> > There is a project called GtkSourceView that extends Gtk+ with a source > editor See also https://github.com/tknopp/Julietta.jl On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Ooops, stupid question. I see that the screenshot actually shows the > source code. You are using Gtk (y

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Ooops, stupid question. I see that the screenshot actually shows the source code. You are using Gtk (yay!). There is a project called GtkSourceView that extends Gtk+ with a source editor with support for syntax highlighting, line numbers, and so on: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GtkSourceView/

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

> > we currently suffer from too much diversity in plotting APIs Working on it, Daniel. ;) On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > On 14 September 2015 at 15:44, Andrei wrote: > >> To continue Michael's answer, I think it would be nice to collect list of >> most importa

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree with Tom. For example, KDevelop and QtDevelop are apparently excellent IDEs with great debuggers, but they both use plain old gdb in the background. I suspect that some of the people asking for an IDE are really looking for a good debugger and easy access to documentation. On 14 September

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Good work. Which toolkit are you using to develop this? Last week I was looking at GUI toolkits for Julia and I think that Gtk+ is the most developed. I think that an IDE written in Julia is the right goal for the long term. Is the code published somewhere? Can I have a look? Cheers, Daniel. On

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 14 September 2015 at 15:44, Andrei 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 -- cu

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 14 September 2015 at 14:56, J Luis 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 ca

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Well, Gambas for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambas Am Montag, 14. September 2015 14:54:27 UTC+2 schrieb Sheehan Olver: > > Are there any open source languages with a "good" native IDE? > > I think IDEs are probably too painful to develop unless paid to do so.. > > > On 14 Sep 2015, a

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On 14 September 2015 at 14:54, Sheehan Olver wrote: > Are there any open source languages with a "good" native IDE? > > I think IDEs are probably too painful to develop unless paid to do so.. > There are many good IDEs for C and C++; and some for Fortran, Python and Perl. But al of them took a

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree - each part should work well (and as far as possible be in Julia). We should keep the eye on compatibility though, for example many IDEs assume the gdb-mi interface for the debugger. If we go our own way in Julia it will make it much harder to adopt. On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 10

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

> > If I had to pick someplace to focus effort on improving tooling for Julia > in general, I’d look at improving/adding a network interface to the REPL. If anyone is interested in working on this, one approach is to implement the server side of the Jupyter protocol in pure Julia. So far the netw

  1   2   >