Re: This is a simple question

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

If the class browser for VisualSlickedit knew Ada better (it does somewhat)
you would have the best of both worlds -- it has emacs emulation, for
example.  I really like it.  I have the compilers integrated with the
buttons you mention, as well as integrated configuration management of my
choice and a host of other tools too.

If enough Ada people asked for better support they would work on it more.  I
just haven't had time to provide the feedback to them about the browser.

www.slickedit.com

Free demos for most operating systems are available.

(I am in no way affiliated with them.)


"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in
message news:9q4bv3$okv$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> I really cannot understand that observation. There are applications
programs
> that have simple, graphical & menu doohickies to do simple things. There
are
> applications programs that have all kinds of powerful features if only you
> want to memorize hundreds of ctrl-shift-alt-caps-lock-tab key sequences
and
> tricky command line interpreters. Explain to me why you can't build an
> editor that has a "Compile"/Build"/"Link"/"Run" set of buttons and *also*
> interprets ctrl-shift-alt-caps-lock-tab key sequences and a tricky command
> line? You like being an editor power-user? Great! RTFM. You just want to
> build a hello-world app and hit the "Run" button? Great! Here's your
> cut-n-paste mousey editor with a "Run" button at the top. Why are the two
> incompatible?
>
> And I still don't see how you say to EMACS: "See that directory over there
> full of Ada files? That's my project. Go open up my *project* and display
> all the files on the left for me. Make sure I can click on the file of
> interest and have it expand to show me all of the
> functions/procedures/types/objects/whatever that are in it. Make sure I
can
> click on any one of those thingies and be put right in the text where its
> at." That's the kind of thing that a few other IDEs I've used provide.
> (Possibly, as Ted suggested, an IDE could be built that does this & then
> gives you a choice of text editors to invoke on the file in question. But
> that's not the same as saying "EMACS can be your IDE...")
>
> I am not saying that EMACS can't edit Ada files and do spiffy Ada things.
> What I'm saying is that it doesn't look like a standard PC application and
> that it doesn't provide simple, obvious ways of getting simple, obvious
> things done. As such I would think it would take too much work to make it
> into an Ada IDE and/or the end result would likely be an attrocity that
> would be very off-putting to many PC developers used to seeing looking a
> certain way.
>
> Sure. There will always be "power users" who will want millions of
features
> and be willing to read reams of documentation to become familiar with a
> given tool. However, I think you can point at a much larger body of people
> who just want to point and click and get a few simple things done.
(Notepad
> gets used by a *lot* of people even though it doesn't do much. What it
> *does* do is obvious to any PC user - something EMACS lacks but might
> possibly be able to have, had that been a design goal.) IMHO, EMACS
suffers
> from satisfying the power-user at the expense of failing to satisfy the
> casual user. The two are not incompatible.
>
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Senior Software Engineer
> Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
> Enabling the digital revolution
> e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
> Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/
>
>
> "David Bolen" <db3l@fitlinxx.com> wrote in message
> news:uy9mj2do3.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com...
> > "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> >
> > I'd agree with the goal.  I've just found that in my experience more
> > often than not an IDE designed to present itself as simple and obvious
> > rarely has the underlying depth to become more than simple and obvious
> > when you acclimate to that.  That's fine for occasional and casual
> > use, but it begins to fall down quickly for serious development, where
> > you quickly find yourself wanting to bypass all the friendly interface
> > stuff and just get the job done.
> >
>
>
>