RE: powerful editors versus IDEs (was: License to Steal)

["Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>]

Kent, I certainly agree with most of your comments.

However, the ObjectAda (for Windows) IDE does allow you
to use a different editor, but its editor is adequate.
I tried numerous editors without finding one I liked
better, so I gave up trying to find a better one.

It has most of what I consider to be necessary features:

  - the standard search/replace
  - auto formatting
  - color coded identifiers (reserved words, comments, etc.)
  - multi-line indent/unindent and auto-indent
  - multi-line comment/uncomment
  - find in files the allows you to click on the
    entry to jump to the location in the file
  - bookmarks
  - go to definition/completion (browse), unfortunately
    it has a limitation.  You can browse forward all you
    want, but it will only pop back one level.  I'm
    hoping they will have a fix for that soon.

I miss the repeat function in emacs, where you could repeat
an action anywhere in a file.  That would definitely come in
handy when we have to add an update comment to the end of 
every line that we modify.

But I hate the way you open a file in emacs.  I like the
GUI approach of popping up an Open Dialog box to allow you
to browse to a file.  ObjectAda has a Project window that
lists all the files included in the project.  Simply
double click the entry and it opens it.  If the file is
not part of the project, then the Open Dialog is an easy
way to find and open it.

> I find it much easier to keep an editor window
> open, and build my software with _my_ choice of
> editors, importing the code fresh into the IDE
> with each edit and paying the penalty of no
> incremental compilation or whatever

This usually isn't a problem with ObjectAda until the 
project starts getting large.  And even then, you can
open another copy of ObjectAda as an editor only.
That way the copy that's opened as the project for 
compilation doesn't do the internal validation, but you
do lose the "go to completion" capability, because it
will only browse on files that are part of the project.

I don't think I tried vim.  Where can I find it?  Does
it work on Windows NT?

Thanks
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: xanthian@well.com [mailto:xanthian@well.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:26 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: <no subject>


Subject powerful editors versus IDEs in software development Re: License to
Steal
References: <mailman.988913824.5508.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>

> I prefer a GUI oriented IDE with some power.  I
> miss some of the features of both editors, but
> not nearly enough to ever go back.

> Frank

I'm a bit confused; how could you describe an IDE
as "with some power" if it doesn't even provide
for dropping through to your power editor of
choice?

  [I'm a vim() fan myself, having outgrown both
  vi() and emacs(), but that's not really
  relevant to the larger issue of being captive
  to wimpy editing tools when writing software.]

The StarLogo language in which I'm presently
writing code (don't ask) also has an IDE, also
has a "wimpy to the point of provoking suicidal
impulses" editor.

I find it much easier to keep an editor window
open, and build my software with _my_ choice of
editors, importing the code fresh into the IDE
with each edit and paying the penalty of no
incremental compilation or whatever, than I do
trying to work with an editor roughly as feature
free as MS-Notepad.

After all, typical compilers are lightning fast
today, so almost all of the _time_ I spend in
software development is spent editing, whether of
code or docs, so editing is where I want the most
powerful assistance from my choice of tools.  In
my experience with several integrated development
environments, IDE developers have too many things
on their plates to also develop the world's best
editor, whatever that might be, as part of their
tool, and the embedded editor more often smacks
of being an afterthought.

I suppose this is back to the Unix concept of a
suite of tools each of which does one thing well
and has a simple integration technique, being
more usable than a monolithic tool that does lots
of things tolerably.

Which is of course a religious issue.

All of which are only opinions, but ones based on
grunches of carpal tunnel syndrome risk taking over
almost 41 years.

Cheers!

xanthian.
--
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com>


-- 
Posted from smtp.well.com [208.178.101.27] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
_______________________________________________
comp.lang.ada mailing list
comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada