Re: This is a simple question

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <9q1lrp$e1q$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>
>It seemed to come up with an Ada menu option when I figured out how to open
>up an Ada file - why no pop-up window with a file selection screen? (We're
>back to bitching about it not looking like a Windows app.) And here's the

Ted's mantra #5: "Different" /= "Bad".

Perhaps it is bad, if that's all you know how to operate and care how to learn
to operate. But one can actually find the proper file to open and open it lots
quicker the way Emacs does it. Hints:

When prompted for a file, you can hit a few characters and then TAB, and it will
try to complete the filename for you. If there are name clashes, it will fill in
the common part, you can then type the next character or two and hit TAB again
to get the rest. If you are confused about what the clash could be, hit TAB a
second time, and it will list the possiblities.

You can load a directory into a buffer ("open directory" from the menu). This
then works much like your "pop up" file dialog, except that it is *way* more
powerful, as all the normal editing commands work in it too. For instance, the
search commands are available (quite helpful in directories with lots of files).
This directory list buffer also stays available until you explicitly get rid of
it, rather than going away and making you surf around for it again later.

>main gripe: After pointing it at an Ada file, it quite nicely opened it up
>and managed to look like Notepad or any other standard issue text editor.
>Gee. That's swell. Why not just use whatever standard-issue text editor
>thats already on my system?

It should have added an "Ada" menu, which includes all the sorts of options you
were talking about. Are you sure it isn't there?

Also, most Ada users will probably want to turn on font-lock mode to get a
syntax-colorized buffer. (Go under "Help->Options" and select "Global Font
Lock").

There's also loads of other nifty stuff in there for even more advanced users.
You can get a list of them and their current bindings (if any) by selecting
"Help->Describe->Describe Buffer Modes" from the menu.

I don't think any of this stuff is really out of line compared to the difficulty
in figuring out how to use another full-featured development environment, like
VisualStudio.

>Well, my harangue against EMACS stems from earlier discussions about using
>it as the basis for an IDE for Ada - making a "kit" for Ada development that
>starts to look like other "kits" for other languages. My objection is not
>that EMACS lacks power (I'm told by people I trust that it has lots of
>power - maybe too much power.) My objection is that as it currently stands,
>it doesn't pop-up as an Ada-oriented IDE with fairly obvious
>buttons/menus/icons/whatever that do the things one would typically want to
>do with a library full of Ada stuff and do it in an
>intuitively-obvious-to-the-casual-PS-oriented-observer way.

Again, I don't think "looking like everyone else" is nessecarily a valid top
goal. Emacs' differences allow it to do more things. Sure, that makes it rough
on beginners. If beginners need some kind of rounded-scissors IDE, those exist
(even for Ada). 

What our point was, was that any attempt to make an environment for *serious*
users should be based on Emacs. Otherwise, you will spend loads of effort
duplicating (a small part of) what has been done before. Worse, when you are
done, you certianly won't have *all* the power of Emacs duplicated (it probably
has near a million man years invested in it), and serious users will be forced
back into Emacs as they find your features lacking. In the end, all your effort
will be wasted, as folks will just find ways to end-run your tools so they can
use Emacs. This isn't just theory, I've seen it happen on multiple projects. Its
frustrating to see good vendor tools (and all the time they spent working on
them) go to waste because they didn't bother to build around Emacs.

But it might indeed be a good idea to make some kind of Ada-specific bundle that
includes Emacs, the latest&greatest Ada mode, certian useful options changed
from their defaults (eg: colorizing), and a "getting started with Ada" buffer
that loads the first time Emacs is started. That would help out serious users
who aren't afraid to learn, but don't know where to start. I really don't think
it would take much more than that. I suppose if you really wanted to get fancy,
you could replace all the standard menus with ones of your own devising. You
could also rework Ada mode a bit to make it work more like what you are used to.
All the tools are there, you are just quibbling over their default presentation.

>don't begrudge EMACS fans their editor of choice - more power to them. I
>just wouldn't try to use it as the basis for an Ada IDE if I was building
>one from bottom-dead-center with the goal of making a commercially viable
>development kit. I'd want something that looked more like what PC developers
>are used to seeing. I don't see EMACS fitting that description. Just my

Again, that might sell copies to managers and beginners, but it would go unused
in the places I've worked, if it isn't integrated with Emacs. If some company
wants to try it, more power to them. But as a volunteer effort, we only have so
many voluteer hours available in this community. It'd be criminal to squander
them on reinventing wheels.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.