 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> That said, you're aware that Java sucks in this regard, right? :-)
...there's a regard in which Java does *not* suck?
(Actually, yeah, there is: The idea. It was a good idea. Unfortunately
they did it wrong...)
>> Oh, and do NOT try to delete or rename classes. VS apparently doesn't
>> like this at all.
>
> You have to do it right.
Right. Well let's not like anybody shows us how to use VS or anything.
They just acted like it was "obvious" or something.
>> And trying to figure out where VS stores them is nontrivial,
>
> Does "nontrivial" mean "I had
> to actually go take a look or read some documentation"?
If you're doing this stuff yourself by hand, you have a folder full of
*.java files. When you compile them, it creates *.class files. Oh, and
you have to have subfolders to patch the package structure, but that's
about it.
Create a VS project and you've got source files, project metadata,
several different compiled versions of the stuff, resource files,
packaged-up deployment files, JavaDoc files... It's not like you need to
be Leroy Gibbs to figure it out, but it's certainly not trivial.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> In Haskell, I can fire up Glade, paint my UI, save it, and then write
>> maybe 6 lines of code in Haskell, hit compile, and I've got a GUI
>> application.
>
> Same in C#. Actually, you don't have to write any code at all. The
> boilerplate is created for you. What do you think Glade is doing, if not
> generating boilerplate.
Actually it saves the GUI description as an XML file, which your program
then loads and parses at runtime.
> When you want to (for example) code a Windows service, or a plug-in for
> a web browser, or a custom type for a SQL server, you're going to have
> more boilerplate to hook those two together.
Now, see, to me these kinds of tasks all belong to the set of things
which are "impossible" in the first place, so I guess I don't tend to
think about it. You can't write web browser plugins unless you're a C
programmer, unfortunately.
> A sufficiently advanced language can turn any "boilerplate" into
> "library code", but that's generally done by having the compiler running
> library code at compile time. Hence, LISP macros, FORTH dictionaries,
> etc. An IDE does that for languages where the syntax doesn't include
> running arbitrary code at compile time.
Heh, maybe.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "please use the currently selected alternative to complete what I'm
>> typing",
>
> Tab. Just like every other auto-complete system in existence.
Hmm, I never thought of that. (This is before I encountered Unix.)
>> (And then there's the fact that every IDE I've seen refuses to let you
>> indent your code correctly... but that's nothing to do with
>> auto-complete as such.)
>
> Edit->Advanced->Reformat entire document
Wouldn't that just apply the incorrect formatting to the whole document?
> Dude, maybe rather than bitching that IDEs suck, you should give it a
> rest until you've tried one written this millenium.
I didn't say IDEs suck, I said autocomplete sucks. ;-) Or at least, the
two implementations of it I tried sucked...
>>> 5) Auto compile/link/run with one keypress
>>
>> I usually leave a CLI window open. To compile, just press the up arrow
>> and enter. But sure, I'm certainly not *against* such a feature! ;-)
>
> You know, that works pretty poorly if you have anything other than code
> involved. If you're doing a video game and you need to import the audio,
> graphics, models, and animations, once command line is unlikely to do it.
...which is why people write batch files. ;-)
> OK, so you have your development environment, non-integrated. So? What's
> your point?
No "point" as such, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the
perceived advantages of IDEs are, since it's apparently not possible to
live without one.
>>> 6) "Template" projects for a Windows app
>>
>> What does that do?
>
> Try it! Or at least google it. :-)
A human being is far more likely to give a useful overview. (Let's face
it, if I try it, I'll just spend an hour not being able to figure out
what it's supposed to be for.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Right. Well let's not like anybody shows us how to use VS or anything.
> They just acted like it was "obvious" or something.
Well, by "doign it right", it means anwering the right answer on the menu
that pops up, that says "Hey, you renamed a class, do you want me to rename
the references?" Or "You renamed a file, do you want me to rename the class?"
> If you're doing this stuff yourself by hand, you have a folder full of
> *.java files. When you compile them, it creates *.class files. Oh, and
> you have to have subfolders to patch the package structure, but that's
> about it.
Yep. Now go add some native code, the icon that Windows should use for the
application, the icon it should use for documents, the files that translate
your UI into other languages, the prerequisites that have to be installed
(like other JAR files or the JVM runtime of the right version), the sample
data, the documentation, and the installer.
> Create a VS project and you've got source files, project metadata,
> several different compiled versions of the stuff, resource files,
> packaged-up deployment files, JavaDoc files... It's not like you need to
> be Leroy Gibbs to figure it out, but it's certainly not trivial.
It's trivial to figure out where the compiler-generated files are. They're
in the subdirectory obj if they're intermediate object files, or bin if
they're executable binary files to be distributed. Since the idea of "obj"
vs "bin" has been around since roughly 1970, those terms shouldn't be a
suprise to any programmer.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Actually it saves the GUI description as an XML file, which your program
> then loads and parses at runtime.
Yes. As does Visual Studio. And what do you think the boilerplate does there
beside "load and parse at runtime" that XML? :-)
> Now, see, to me these kinds of tasks all belong to the set of things
> which are "impossible" in the first place, so I guess I don't tend to
> think about it. You can't write web browser plugins unless you're a C
> programmer, unfortunately.
Of course you can.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Edit->Advanced->Reformat entire document
> Wouldn't that just apply the incorrect formatting to the whole document?
It applies the formatting rules you asked it to apply. If you tell it to use
the "wrong" formatting rules, you'll get consistent but "wrongly" formatted
code. Which would be "the" incorrect formatting?
>> You know, that works pretty poorly if you have anything other than
>> code involved. If you're doing a video game and you need to import the
>> audio, graphics, models, and animations, once command line is unlikely
>> to do it.
>
> ...which is why people write batch files. ;-)
So you're going to maintain a batch file that first compiles the code needed
to parse the video game animations, then the code that writes them out, then
runs the animations through that, then put them in the right place?
Why in the world would you do that when it has already been written for you?
And again, yes, people write batch files because they're unfamiliar with
IDEs. You realize that's not a *good* thing, right?
> No "point" as such, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the
> perceived advantages of IDEs are, since it's apparently not possible to
> live without one.
It is if you're doing something small enough. But then, you can live without
batch files too if you never type the same command more than twice.
The advantages of an IDE over a DE is that it's integrated.
>>>> 6) "Template" projects for a Windows app
>>>
>>> What does that do?
>>
>> Try it! Or at least google it. :-)
>
> A human being is far more likely to give a useful overview.
You know what a template is in documents, right? Corporate report template?
Vacation time reporting template? Request for purchase of networking
equipment template?
Same thing, for code.
I want to write a game. I want to write a windows service. I want to write a
new type for a SQL database engine. I want to build a web application.
> I'll just spend an hour not being able to figure out what it's supposed
to be for.
That's because you never practice the skill, so you never improve at it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Make a system which automatically builds a "makefile" behind the scenes
> and keeps it up-to-date as the source code changes (ie. by updating all
> the dependencies between files), and you have gone a long way towards an
> IDE.
I use the CMake build system, where you just write this:
add_executable(myraytracer main.cpp spheres.cpp lights.cpp)
...and it handles the dependency mess for you. You don't need an IDE for
that.
I also use the KDevelop IDE, which does not ever edit the makefile (or
CMakeLists) for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I use the CMake build system, where you just write this:
Or QMake. By the time you need this sort of stuff, your program has grown
wildly out of the norm tho. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I use the CMake build system, where you just write this:
> add_executable(myraytracer main.cpp spheres.cpp lights.cpp)
> ...and it handles the dependency mess for you. You don't need an IDE for
> that.
I said that automatic dependency resolving goes a long way towards an IDE,
I didn't say it's sufficient. I also nowhere said that "you need an IDE if
you want to resolve dependencies automatically".
(Besides, what is *your* definition of "IDE", if CMake isn't one?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Besides, what is *your* definition of "IDE", if CMake isn't one?)
CMake is just a new version of make, or a makefile generator, I forget
which. It's not integrated, and it's not an environment, any more than make
itself is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
