|
|
Posted by Oli Filth on 11/12/24 11:30
Andrew DeFaria said the following on 27/10/2005 08:20:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 26/10/2005 00:41:
>>
>>> Oli Filth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 19:07:
>>>>
>>>>> Oli Filth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether the compiler and linker are built into an IDE or stand-alone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? What are you talking about? What compiler/linkers are built
>>>>> into which IDEs? I'm curious...
>>>>
>>>> Integrated, whatever, I think you knew what I meant...
>>>
>>> No I didn't.
>
>> I was referring to, for instance, the Microsoft compiler(s) that comes
>> with Visual Studio, is run by default, and whose input (switches,
>> etc.) and output (compiler error messages) are integrated into the
>> fabric of the IDE. And yes, I do know that one can, if one wants to,
>> run the MS compiler completely independently, from command-line.
>
> You have a strange way of looking at the phrase "built in".
Personally, I wouldn't say it's a massive stretch of that phrase.
> I'm curious, as I don't use monolithic IDEs such as Visual
> Studio, how exactly do you suck out their concept of a project into a
> say a makefile such that you can build the whole application or system
> via a simple command or script.
Certainly, older versions did. With VS .NET, I'm not sure.
>>>>> So the point of having the necessary compiler/linker or interpreter
>>>>> is moot. The point is, that you can indeed operate without an IDE
>>>>> except in the rare case were the compiler/linker/interpreter,
>>>>> whatever is actually built into the IDE (in fact I'd say none)
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, perhaps you're right on this one.
>>>
>>> Ah so then you admit that compilers/linkers/interpreters are not
>>> build into IDEs. Good.
>>
>> Was referring to the paragraph as a whole - not that individual
>> statement...
>
> Now you have me totally confused. The point of the paragraph was to
> enlighten you to the fact that interpreters like PHP are *not* build
> into IDEs rather they are separate entities - indeed separate
> executables that do not require nor use an IDE at all.
I took the pargraph to be essentially saying that "...the necessary
compiler/linker or interpreter is moot. The point is, that you can
indeed operate without an IDE...", and that's the point I was agreeing with.
>> I beg to disagree that an IDE "tells me what to do" - certainly it
>> assists me in doing certain things, or does certain tedious
>> house-keeping for me, but that's the whole point of a tool.
>
> It is demonstrably telling you what to do! It is telling you what the
> function you are typing in is when it assists you with the function
> prototype. Now you are indeed free to ignore it's suggestion but it is
> obviously telling you what it thinks you are doing at this point.
Well, not really. It gives you a list of possible matches given the
current context, which it narrows down as you type. As soon as its guess
is equal to your intention, you press Tab. Alternatively, the parameter
info pop-up just reminds you of the order and types of function
parameters, and allows you to view overload options. It's hardly telling
you to do something that you wouldn't have done if left to your own devices!
Certainly no more than a search engine is telling you where to go when
it returns its search results.
>> Which functionality specifically does a "good editor" give you that
>> isn't available in your average "good IDE"?
>
> Being able to edit multiple different languages at the same time and
> having the editor be cognizant of the different languages. Being able to
> mark sections of code and it knowing how to comment it out with a single
> command (and again be cognizant of multiple languages). Being able to
> edit files remotely via ftp or ssh on any server in the world. Being
> able to dynamically figure out and complete just about anything - not
> just function prototypes.Being able to record complex commands and play
> them back with ease - even repeatedly. Being able to edit huge files, be
> they code or data or even binary (ever patch an executable directly with
> that IDE? XEmacs can!). Being able to compile directly from the editor,
> trace the errors back to the source, etc. Being able to run shell
> commands in the editor capturing and piping the output so as to be able
> to fill in files or code directly. Being able to interact with version
> control to check out and in files with ease. Being able to extend the
> editor in any way I choose using a flexible and AI like language called
> lisp. Etc. etc. Sure some IDEs do some of this. Some others do other
> parts of this. But rarely does one IDE do all of it. Not having to learn
> a whole new way of doing things, different keystrokes, different
> concepts, etc. and repeat that for every IDE for every language that I use.
Well, VS (my IDE of choice for C/C++/C# as you've probably gathered) can
do pretty much all of those things (save the multiple language things).
Can't speak for all IDEs, though.
Thinking about it, VS .NET in fact now offers an API so that third-party
plug-ins can be written or used. I believe there's even a PHP plug-in
somewhere.
>> You gave the FTP example elsewhere in this thread - not only can MS VS
>> manage a web project over FTP, but the Windows abstraction of the file
>> system allows you to access remote files like they were local anyway.
>
> Really? So I can go into MS VS at work and then poke through the
> firewall to edit machines on my Linux box at home through DSL or some
> random box in England? Somehow I don't think I could...
If it's FTP access, you probably can. I dunno about SSH.
> (Actually I did do some VB stuff - VB script
> stuff - but used XEmacs to do it. MS VS VB is all oriented to creating
> Windows GUI programs, but the task at hand was not to produce a GUI
> program rather a script. BTW MS VS took up some 500 - 1 gig of my hard
> drive! What a waste to write a 100 line VB script!
Should've used the VBScript in Excel!
>
>>> Those English dude are so funny. I'm curious, is it actually
>>> pronounced "ass" like us yanks or is it pronounced "are esss"?
>>
>> Mostly like your phonetic representation. Although many people here
>> have been "corrupted" by the influx of American culture via TV and
>> films, and assume that "ass" is the way forward...
>
> That it is... That it is... I will never get used to things like colour
> and cheques.
Ditto for color and checks, and "Z"s where "S"s should be! At the risk
of starting a transatlantic divide, remember which came first!!
> For a giggle you should read: Plan for Improvement of
> English Spelling
> <https://defaria.com/Jokes/Plan4ImprovementOfEnglishSpelling.php>
>
Beautiful...
>>
>> Whilst "think before you type" is a virtue I attempt to adhere to,
>> doesn't *always* work in practice.
>
> Well I've had the same problem and still do on occasion. But I actively
> worked on it. Another concept I employ (usually) is the silly and stupid
> concept of checking what I typed *before* I hit the send button. I'll do
> it here to.
^
^
I think this may be irony epitomised!!
> After I'm done typing in what I wanted to say I go back and
> read it all. I change those mistakes of "your" but meant "you're", etc.
> Some times I add stuff. Sometimes I reword stuff. Sometime I check it
> again. I find it useful.
For extended posts like this, I usually spend a long time making sure
that my arguments make as much sense as possible - but sometimes I
forget that what makes sense in my head doesn't always make sense in a NG.
> There are many of us who do and we really don't appreciate it when your
> choice of IDE and your method of building does not easily fit into an
> automated way of building large quantities of software which is how it
> usually, eventually needs to happen in any large organization.
I entirely empathise with that. Would it be fair to say, though, that it
could be equally argued the other way - that programmers might not like
being forced to use a particular set of tools (or rather, prohibited
from using certain tools) to make the build engineer's job easier?
An analogy could be: if you were a user of Thunderbird, but your
organisation forced you to use Outlook for e-mail because it makes their
admin easier, would you not be annoyed?
--
Oli
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|