XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.software.firefox   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-01-19 09:43, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   > On 19.01.2025 03:56, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >> On 2025-01-19 03:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-01-19 01:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-01-18 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:19:06 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I know profesional programmers that never used an IDE.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> IDEs only support limited ways of building things. Far better to   
   >>>>>> have a   
   >>>>>> general-purpose editor, like Emacs, that is capable of driving any   
   >>>>>> build   
   >>>>>> system.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A good IDE can do things like set breakpoints in the source code, start   
   >>>>> the application in debug mode, and run a line a time, while examining   
   >>>>> the variables (even writing into the variables).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Not in the debugger, but in the IDE.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Launch the debugger from within an editor window. Simples.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's not it. I don't want to launch the debugger.   
   >>   
   >> Look, I understand that you are happy without a fully featured IDE. But   
   >> similarly, I am asking you to accept that I am not happy without a fully   
   >> featured IDE.   
   >   
   > Yes. And I think you are right. But we should also sort things a bit.   
   > An IDE is something completely different than an editor, of course.   
   > It's a thing where typically tons of different features are combined   
   > and _strongly interconnected_ to offer an integrated user experience.   
   > That's a strength of IDEs, and a weakness. What LDO was implicitly   
   > trying to point out was (I think) that it's good to have tools that   
   > have a clear task (you don't pay for things that you don't want) and   
   > a flexible interface (to make use of _powerful_ components). The tool   
   > or IDE designers, for example, could provide a setting where you can   
   > choose the (integrated) components. An editing interface, for example,   
   > is quite simple and clear, and it would in principle be possible to   
   > use any editor (per user setting) also in an IDE; for the interacting   
   > features you'd just need a (typically small) "adapter layer". In fact   
   > there's quite some well designed tools that allow to use own editors.   
   > The advantages are multifold; it's not only that you can use for the   
   > individual features specialized components - components that do their   
   > respective job much better than any IDE-built-in re-implementation of   
   > a feature (or a "clone"). During the decades of my IT practice I used   
   > IDEs twice. The problems I had with them was, for one, that I had to   
   > use exactly what was supported by the IDE, and use of any powerful   
   > tools to efficiently perform tasks that I was used to was impossible   
   > or overly cumbersome by clumsy workarounds. For someone who is used   
   > to do _arbitrarily complex_ editing functions in an _efficient_ way   
   > (with powerful editors) it's really a pain to work with common IDEs.   
   > But many people I observed were doing quite _primitive editing_; they   
   > don't know better given all the GUI based primitive editors that we   
   > typically often find as inferior ad hoc editing (re-)implementation   
   > and that folks got used to. With IDEs it's often just a mouse orgy of   
   > clicking things together in a mixture of mouse/menu and text input,   
   > no editing any more. The efficiency of keyboard(-only) input (e.g. in   
   > editors) has to be compensated by other means (like auto-completion).   
   > I think that's one reason why the opinions are so strong and why the   
   > permeability from one group/type of users/programmers to the other   
   > is so difficult. I'd only have wished that folks who speak about the   
   > pros and cons [of IDEs and powerful editors] would not be completely   
   > ignorant and full of prejudice; ignorance AND prejudice is a very bad   
   > (and in Real Life topics even dangerous) combination.   
   >   
   >> Both things are true for many programmers.   
   >   
   > Janis   
   >   
   > PS (as an aside): While IDEs usually try to increase their feature   
   > set for a yet better support of their dedicated tasks Emacs is often   
   > [humorously] despised (especially by Vi users) as not being an editor   
   > but more of an IDE.   
      
   Or an operating system :-D   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)