Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> That's an IDE issue, not a language issue. See, for example, Eiffel's IDEs.
> > 
> >   IMO a language shouldn't rely on IDE or text editor features in order to
> > be readable.

> So you'd rather rely on the programmer doing a job the IDE ought to be 
> automating, just to insist it's there?

  Yes, because IDEs are necessarily quite platform-specific.

> We're discussing basically manually built .h files vs automatically built .h 
> files, and you're suggesting that manually built .h files are better because 
> the compiler can force someone to provide them, whereas with an IDE they 
> might not have a nice summary?  I don't think you really mean that.

  You said "That's an IDE issue, not a language issue." I read that to mean
that a language (like C# in this case) doesn't need to be designed to be
readable because an IDE can be used to make it readable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message