|
|
Posted by Oli Filth on 10/25/05 18:21
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
> > Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 02:29:
> >>
> >> Sorry but that does not compute! Why is the presence of a compiler
> >> dictate the need for an IDE? Both the interpreted and compiled based
> >> languages can suffer from the same problem mentioned above.
> >
> > I was refuting the idea that you could fix code errors on any PC
> > without "specialist" tools. That only applies for script-based
> > languages, and therefore isn't a general rule. Wasn't very clear
> > originally, I admit!
>
> Sorry, still doesn't compute. What stops one from logging into a system
> and tweaking and recompiling say a C program? Ah are you locked into MS
> VisualStudio? Well lookee here! Another monolithic IDE application!
> Which, of course, points to another reason why IDEs are indeed bad. It
> seems you are admitting that without them you cannot work!
Whether the compiler and linker are built into an IDE or stand-alone,
you still need access to a compiler/linker in order to recompile and
rebuild after a code change, hence "'specialist' tools" in my earlier
point. I wasn't suggesting that the need for a compiler "dictates the
need for an IDE", simply that the previous argument (that not relying
on an IDE means you can work anywhere easily) isn't generally true.
> You see it starts off with "Gee this is cool because it colors the
> syntax. And look here it bring up the relevant documentation! And auto
> completes. Cool, cool, cool. And I can drag and drop my files into this
> project thingy and not have to think about make files" then progresses
> to the point where, without the monolithic IDE application and your
> "environment" you effectively can't work - and that's bad!
It kind of goes back to the "pain in the arse" argument. I *could*
write an entire application in Notepad/XEmacs/generic-text-editor, it
would just be a pain in the arse! The tools offered by the IDE greatly
increase my productivity, without detracting from my *understanding* of
my code (in the logical/design-structure sense) in any way.
> > I think there's a difference between IDEs and the calculator example.
> > By using a calculator to do your sums, it can act as a replacement for
> > knowing *how* to calculate (I agree, BTW ;) ). Using an IDE to remind
> > you of function syntax, for example, can't act as a replacement for
> > knowing *how* to construct a program.
>
> I beg to differ. Often IDEs implement concepts of projects and other
> things that are not only designed to work from the IDE, but can't work
> at all unless you are in the IDE. You loose the concept of how to
> construct the program outside of the context of the IDE itself.
Ah, perhaps I should've been clearer - when I said "construct", I guess
I meant "design", as in the design of class hierarchy, data-types,
algorithms, data abstraction, etc., not the physical implementation of
dividing into source files, using makefiles, source control, etc.
But then, knowing how to build a C app via the command-line, etc.
doesn't really offer much insight into how to build a Java app via the
command-line, nor how to perform gate-synthesis from VHDL without the
IDE. (The point being that the argument that knowing how to do it from
basics is a more fundamental/universally-applicable skill doesn't
necessarily follow either).
> > In the case of the IDE, it's not hiding anything "under the hood"
> > (FrontPage excepted).
>
> I disagree. Take a sizable application that you use your IDE for and
> take it out of the IDE. I bet you'll be surprised how it's not an easy
> task to do...
Isn't that more a compatability issue? Clearly a C++ project done in MS
VS won't work in the Borland IDE "straight out of the box", for
example.
--
Oli
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|