[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

>From here: http://julialang.org/downloads/ - The Juno integrated development environment (IDE). http://www.junolab.org/ On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:12:22 AM UTC+3, Deb Midya wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks in advance. > > I am

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Hi, Deb You noted that you are using Julia-0.3.7. Unless you are required to use 0.3.7, your first step should be installing the current version. you can get it at http://julialang.org/downloads/ There are a couple of IDE efforts underway. They do help, but there is no RStudio-like environmen

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Deb, I use Juno all the time. It works good for me on Windows 10, and Julia version 3.11 I have used R-Studio extensively in R and it is a great IDE. Juno is nowhere near as powerful, but Julia is a speed demon -- way faster than R. ...Archie On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:12:22 PM UTC

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Also, it is worth pointing out that a lot of the future IDE effort (Juno 2) will be focussed around Atom. https://atom.io/packages/language-julia https://github.com/JuliaLang/atom-language-julia https://github.com/JunoLab/atom-julia-client -viral On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 9:12:22 PM UTC+

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I think a good IDE should have: - A proper console and a good way to send single line and block of codes to it (e.g. matlab's code section) - A decent text editor - Integrated plots - Proper window management (docking, etc) so you don't have windows everywhere All this meet two others broad an

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Have you tried Hydrogen with Atom? It has all of those things (subjectively). On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:05:59 AM UTC-7, STAR0SS wrote: > > I think a good IDE should have: > > - A proper console and a good way to send single line and block of codes > to it (e.g. matlab's code section) >

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

It's pretty good but it's like lighttable, there's no console and the plots management is a bit wonky (plots on top of your code?).

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

You can create a watch window that has your plot in it so that it's not on top of your code. Bonus: if you change your variables, it updates after evaluation. See http://imgur.com/elLU3M7 for an example. Of course, even with these features, it might not be right for you. You can have a console

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree. BTW, does someone consider Eclipse plugin for Julia? Similar to pydev. For scientific work I prefer Spyder, but for debugging Pydev is more powerful. Not that I like Eclipse, just no choice to avoid it :) For some reasons, Python run on Atom with Hydrogen, but Julia doesn't, it is hang

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

That happened to me when forgot to start atom from the command line and used the menu entry or shortcut instead. On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Oleg Mikulchenko wrote: > > I agree. BTW, does someone consider Eclipse plugin for Julia? Similar to > pydev. For scientific work I

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

What is your environment? On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 10:17:58 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > That happened to me when forgot to start atom from the command line and > used the menu entry or shortcut instead. > > On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Oleg Mikulchenko wrote

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Fedora 20. Difference with loading the file from the menu versus starting atom with filename as param exist for Python, and start from the command line solves the problem for Python. But not for Julia. On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:18:44 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > What is your

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

not knowing Fedora, but on linuxmint -- the best guidance I can give you is the entire process that worked for me -- the details really matter more than they should. I have both python 2.7 and python 3.4 installed (I use python 3.4, sometimes other stuff wants python 2.7--this is one of those oc

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Thank you, Jeffrey. You pushed me to install python3.4.3/iPython/Jupiter/numpy/scipy/matplotlib and it works standalone and under atom. So I have two versions of Python working under atom and Julia - none. Tried different atom installations (with different default Pythons) – it doesn't change b

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

ok, after careful dozen of installations/de-installations, atom-julia works for basic features. But it fails for graphics: UndefVarError: @generated not defined while loading .../ColorTypes/src/traits.jl . Any suggestions? Thanks.

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

You're probably trying to use an 0.4-only version of a package under Julia 0.3. On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, Oleg Mikulchenko wrote: > > ok, after careful dozen of installations/de-installations, atom-julia > works for basic features. But it fails for graphics: UndefVarE

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

May be something wrong with messing up different versions of Julia and Python, agree. I have installed clean versions on Fedora 22 VM (Julia 0.4 only and Python 2.7 only) and it works fine, even at opening files from a menu. On the generic IDE side, I think, some mix of features of new contemp

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

I agree with you, Deb Hi, firstly thanks,i am new to the topic of the programming and i chose Julia i would like to say what i think to reflect on this: Install the IDE Julia Studio in 5 minutes and to write code, i had to install packages, was ideal, then Forio not continued to maintain. I h

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

On Saturday, 5 September 2015 21:03:28 UTC+2, kike wrote: > > They say that Julia is a language that is simple and fast with a great > future ... but if they want to extend and reach non-programrs, there is > that make things easier and simple ... that is to say a IDE JuliaEstudio > type. >

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

While I understand your point, the success of a new programming language depends on the availability of a good IDE. Apart from the projects, mentioned so far I also want to mention spyder. Integrating Julia support would be easy and it would make the transition for Python users easier. Not every

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Julia is still in its early stage. Even the document is not very understandable, how can there be a full fledged IDE? (If I remember, Julia hasn't a debugger yet.) This lack differentiates the hardcore hackers and casual programmers (e.g., me). That's why currently Julia is only a carnival of h

[julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Maybe I should also express my concern that the concept of IDE is also going through a revolution (e.g. notebook, lightable). They are more natural for dynamic languages. The matlab-like IDE is a bit old fashioned. On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 10:13:03 AM UTC+2, Sisyphuss wrote: > > Julia

[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%

[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

[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

[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

Feel free to step up to the plate and help make any or all of that happen. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:11 PM, kike wrote: > I agree with you, Deb > > Hi, firstly thanks,i am new to the topic of the programming and i chose > Julia i would like to say what i think to reflect on this: > > Install the

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

On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner wrote: > While I understand your point, the success of a new programming language > depends on the availability of a good IDE. > No it doesn't. C, C++, Perl, Python, Fortran, JavaScript, PHP, and arguably even Java became successful long before they ac

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

On 14 September 2015 at 10:23, Sisyphuss wrote: > Maybe I should also express my concern that the concept of IDE is also > going through a revolution (e.g. notebook, lightable). They are more > natural for dynamic languages. The matlab-like IDE is a bit old fashioned. > > Could you please clarif

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

On Mon, Sep 14 2015, Daniel Carrera wrote: > On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner > wrote: > >> While I understand your point, the success of a new programming language >> depends on the availability of a good IDE. >> > > No it doesn't. > > C, C++, Perl, Python, Fortran, JavaScript, PHP, a

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

I *do *like matlab-like IDE provided that its interface, font, color and so on are clean and aesthetic. However, they are only used as development tools. They could not be used in a presentation like Notebook could. LightTable is something between the two: it is more presentable than the matlab

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

segunda-feira, 14 de Setembro de 2015 às 09:26:05 UTC+1, Daniel Carrera escreveu: > > > On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner > wrote: > >> While I understand your point, the success of a new programming language >> depends on the availability of a good IDE. >> > > No it doesn't. > > C, C

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

On 14 September 2015 at 12:40, J Luis wrote: > > > segunda-feira, 14 de Setembro de 2015 às 09:26:05 UTC+1, Daniel Carrera > escreveu: >> >> >> On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner wrote: >> >>> While I understand your point, the success of a new programming language >>> depends on the ava

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

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-4, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > On 14 September 2015 at 12:40, J Luis > > wrote: > >> >> >> segunda-feira, 14 de Setembro de 2015 às 09:26:05 UTC+1, Daniel Carrera >> escreveu: >>> >>> >>> On 14 September 2015 at 08:16, Uwe Fechner wrote: >>> W

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

  On September 14, 2015 at 14:17:43, Daniel Carrera (dcarr...@gmail.com(mailto:dcarr...@gmail.com)) wrote: > On 14 September 2015 at 12:40, J Luis wrote: > > > > > > segunda-feira, 14 de Setembro de 2015 às 09:26:05 UTC+1, Daniel Carrera > > escreveu: > > > > > > On 14 September 2015 at 0

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

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 8:21:41 AM UTC-4, Joshua Ballanco wrote: ... > > I suppose you could also take the counter-counterpoint of LISP. People not > only built IDEs but entire *machines* tailored specifically to running and > debugging LISP, and it still hasn’t (really) caught on (ye

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

On Mon, Sep 14 2015, Joshua Ballanco wrote: > It was really only later that projects were started to build “true” Clojure > IDEs, and still I don’t think any of these surpass (or even really approach) > the utility of the IDE plugins (the three IDEs of which I’m aware are: > LightTable, NightC

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

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, at 10:31 pm, Tamas Papp wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 14 2015, Joshua Ballanco wrote: >> >> It was really only later that projects were started to

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

> >> I'm have many years of experience with Matlab and find its IDE a >> can't-work-without-it tool. When one experiments its debugger the reason >> becomes obvious. >> >> > Do you claim that Fortran, C and Perl never achieved success until someone > wrote an IDE with a built-in debugger? ...

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

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 8:56:31 AM UTC-4, J Luis wrote: > > > >>> I'm have many years of experience with Matlab and find its IDE a >>> can't-work-without-it tool. When one experiments its debugger the reason >>> becomes obvious. >>> >>> >> Do you claim that Fortran, C and Perl never ac

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

I'd take the neutral ground here - for a language like Julia there is a continuum of users ranging from people happy to live in vim/emacs, through Developer IDEs to people looking for a 'Workbench'. This is dissimilar from many of the languages being argued about in this thread (C, Java, Lisp .

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

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 -- currently work in progress (Gallium.jl), so it may change

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

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 the long term it's the right idea. Using existing editors allow to quickly take advantage of their features, but past that it's really hard to integrate more advanced

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

And to continue Andrei's answer... all of these things need to work well in their own right, and that's what the community should be focused on. IDEs will happen naturally, but they should be composed of things that exist in isolation (IMO). On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Andrei wrote: > To c

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

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

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

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 14:56, 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

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

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

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

> > 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

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

> > 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

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

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

, 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

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

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 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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'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

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 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

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 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

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'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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

  1   2   >