[Raynes]

Raynes, on 17 August 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

Emacs all the way. I have absolutely no use for an IDE. Emacs is the closest thing to an IDE that me or my co-workers are likely to ever need or want, especially given the languages we use.

Sergio Tapia, on 17 August 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Well, to be fair you code in Clojure. You don't really need an IDE, right? Same for Ruby or Python. But try to make an MVC3 applications or a Winforms app without an IDE and it's impressive T4 templates, you'd be wasting your time on trivialities you shouldn't even care about.

Right tools for the right job.

Though, I can't help but feel that the fact that an IDE seems like a necessity for Winforms and <insert tool here> is a problem with those tools. Sounds like the primary problem is boilerplate and repetition which are obviously bad things.

Not saying that those things are 'bad', but if an IDE is required to make them tolerable, they probably need to be improved. But that's why technologies live, die, and are succeeded over time. Programming and programmers evolve.

[Curtis Rutland]

Some of it is boilerplate, but necessary boilerplate. It's hard to explain. In MVC3, there's a lot of code generated for you at the beginning. You can change any of this code, and often need to, but it provides the skeleton web app for you to begin working on. Starting from scratch would be an exercise in frustration, because of things like XML config files and some of the necessary boilerplate for routing requests to controllers. Most of this can't really be simplified away, because it's all modifiable. And scaffolding is another good reason. VS can create a view for a controller and pre-scaffold it based on what type of action you want to take. Is it a List? Scaffold it as a table. Is it detailed view for a single type? Scaffold as a fieldset. An editable view? Scaffold with text editors.

And this scaffolding is done specific to the type of model you're using, so it generates different code based on the custom class you're passing.

Again, hard to explain, but if you used it for a while, it would make sense what I'm saying.

I just don't see why some people shun IDEs so hard. I love them. One tool that has my text editor, my debugger, and my compiler all rolled into one, that I don't have to manually make macros for myself? Why the hell not! A debugger tightly integrated with my text editor so it can point me to the exact spot an error happened, and allow me to move around the code based on the stack? Why the hell not?

This post has been edited by Curtis Rutland: 17 August 2011 - 01:11 PM

[supersloth]

i use editplus for like 90% of my stuff you guys all suck.

[dorknexus]

Quote

I just don't see why some people shun IDEs so hard. I love them. One tool that has my text editor, my debugger, and my compiler all rolled into one, that I don't have to manually make macros for myself? Why the hell not! A debugger tightly integrated with my text editor so it can point me to the exact spot an error happened, and allow me to move around the code based on the stack? Why the hell not?

emacs and vim do all of that and they've been doing if for 30+ years.

[Curtis Rutland]

Then they're IDEs, and people should stop saying "I use VIM/Emacs instead of an IDE."

[ronald911]

Netbeans for Java.
Microsoft Visual 2010 for C#.

Lets face it, IDE's really DO make programming much more pleasant.

[dorknexus]

they are not IDE's because they do not contain all of those components which make up an IDE. They are extensible editors which can interface with debuggers, compilers, etc.

So the difference is that most IDE's are a single software application that does all of the copmiling, editing, debugging, etc as one component.

That is a violation of unix principles which says "small and simple is good." and "write programs to do one thing well." So you have seperate components (interchangable mind you) that interface with each other. The distinction seems trivial but the implications are huge.

[Curtis Rutland]

That makes sense, and I won't argue with it. I say let the Unix people do what they do, and the windows people do what they do.

I'm a windows guy. I live in the MS stack. Windows server, IIS, WCF/ASP.NET MVC, MSSQL, VS, C#. So to me it's OK that my tools are tightly bound. To other people, that's great.

I don't judge anyone by the tools they use. I'll recommend what I've found to be good and leave it at that.

[Raynes]

Curtis Rutland, on 17 August 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

Some of it is boilerplate, but necessary boilerplate. It's hard to explain. In MVC3, there's a lot of code generated for you at the beginning. You can change any of this code, and often need to, but it provides the skeleton web app for you to begin working on. Starting from scratch would be an exercise in frustration, because of things like XML config files and some of the necessary boilerplate for routing requests to controllers. Most of this can't really be simplified away, because it's all modifiable. And scaffolding is another good reason. VS can create a view for a controller and pre-scaffold it based on what type of action you want to take. Is it a List? Scaffold it as a table. Is it detailed view for a single type? Scaffold as a fieldset. An editable view? Scaffold with text editors.

And this scaffolding is done specific to the type of model you're using, so it generates different code based on the custom class you're passing.

Again, hard to explain, but if you used it for a while, it would make sense what I'm saying.

I just don't see why some people shun IDEs so hard. I love them. One tool that has my text editor, my debugger, and my compiler all rolled into one, that I don't have to manually make macros for myself? Why the hell not! A debugger tightly integrated with my text editor so it can point me to the exact spot an error happened, and allow me to move around the code based on the stack? Why the hell not?

It sounds to me like you're describing the problem, not excusing it.

[Sergio Tapia]

I ain't even mad.

This post has been edited by Sergio Tapia: 17 August 2011 - 02:16 PM

[Lemur]

For beginners and new coders an IDE is one heck of a nightmare waiting to happen. For an advanced programmer or professional they're a gold mine.

What makes this distinction? The advanced/pro programmer is adept at code to such a level that they could easily do it either way, the issue is speed. The newbie still has the issue of learning the code, making the IDE a crutch to hobble on in their chosen field.

As far as IDE, Aptana by far, though their documentation blows hard.

Non-IDE: Vi/m. My experience in OpenBSD has heavily contributed towards this behavior.

[Curtis Rutland]

Raynes, on 17 August 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

It sounds to me like you're describing the problem, not excusing it.

Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, I disagree. I'm describing a flexible and complex framework that you're assuming is bloated and overcomplicated, having never seen or used it before.

[Raynes]

Curtis Rutland, on 17 August 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Raynes, on 17 August 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

It sounds to me like you're describing the problem, not excusing it.

Yeah, well that's just like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, I disagree. I'm describing a flexible and complex framework that you're assuming is bloated and overcomplicated, having never seen or used it before.

I don't think I ever accused or assumed it was bloated or overcomplicated. You described it as such. Seriously, I'm sure the framework is great at what it does and its target audience. I'm just not a fan of complexity and my entire point is that there is *always* room for improvement, and this sounds like something that could be (and almost certainly has in some mostly unknown framework for some other language) improved.

But yes, this *is* my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Curtis Rutland]

Quote

But yes, this *is* my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry, movie quote.

But I inferred what you were talking about from your previous post, where you said "Sounds like the primary problem is boilerplate and repetition which are obviously bad things." That seemed to me the same thing as "bloated" or "overcomplicated", so I ran with it. If I misinterpreted you, sorry. I get defensive about my chosen frameworks/IDEs just like you do. Just as long as you know that I didn't downvote you.

This post has been edited by Curtis Rutland: 17 August 2011 - 03:25 PM

[Sergio Tapia]

Quote

I don't think I ever accused or assumed it was bloated or overcomplicated.

Quote

I'm just not a fan of complexity