reborn ?

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Now you're just being silly.

I'm sick and tired of your use of name-calling instead of reasoned
argument. *plonk*, and this time it's for keeps.

 

[Ian Collins]

jaysome said:


Yes, the term is around 20 years old. I have come across it before.


Yes. Linux is therefore an IDE. It includes not just one editor but
many, a compiler, a linker, a debugger, and a whole host of filters and
graphic editors and ancillary programs such as email clients,
newsreaders, word processors, spreadsheets, Web servers and so on. All
out of the box and ready to go.

You could make the same claim for just about any popular *nix variant.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

jaysome said:

An IDE implies an editor, a compiler, a linker and a debugger, all
wrapped into a single application.

Yes. Linux is therefore an IDE. It includes not just one editor but
many, a compiler, a linker, a debugger, [...]

You could make the same claim for just about any popular *nix variant.

Absolutely. And, to be fair, you could even make the same claim for
Windows, if only it shipped with all the requisite software. But it
doesn't, of course.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Now you're just being silly.

A typical IDE will provide a means to
- compile code directly from the editor
- step through running code in the editor
- automatically create build scripts
- automatically link in resources you need
- provide a means to edit non-text resources from withing the editor
etc etc, all without having to write special macros or whatever.

That's one possible approach, but note the use of the word "typical".
I don't see that the ability to do all this stuff *within the editor*
is very important, as long as all this stuff can be done reasonably
easily.

But you know all this. You're just being silly.

I believe he's being quite serious (and, in my opinion, correct). Is
"silly" another word for disagreeing with your viewpoint?

 

[Keith Thompson]

<ot>

I do agree with osmium's assessment Seriously, it seems
reasonable to define an IDE as something more than a loose collection
of components whose relationships and interactions are managed by a
programmer, which is the situation that you've described; to me the
fundamental principle is encapsulation. You can take a golf cart
and bolt on an alternator to run an air conditioner and a portable CD
player, and buy a trailer to haul things with, but it won't be a
pickup truck.

</ot>

In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to say that Linux (or any
Unix-like OS) is an IDE. It's also perfectly reasonable to say that
it isn't, because the component are not "integrated" to your
satisfaction. There is, as far as I know, no definition of
"integrated" that's sufficiently precise to settle the question.

It's also entirely off-topic for comp.lang.c, and I suggest dropping
the argument. (Yes, I'm also guilty of helping to perpetuate it.)

 

[Kenny McCormack]

That's one possible approach, but note the use of the word "typical".
I don't see that the ability to do all this stuff *within the editor*
is very important, as long as all this stuff can be done reasonably
easily.


I believe he's being quite serious (and, in my opinion, correct). Is
"silly" another word for disagreeing with your viewpoint?

The problem is that he (Heathfield) is working from the wrong set of
assumptions. His logic seems to go like this:

1) IDEs are good.
2) Linux is good.
therefore 3) Linux must be an IDE.

Obviously, assumption #2 is unimpeachable and #3 follows directly
therefrom. However, assumption #1 should be replaced with:

1) IDEs are for weenies (such as the OP) who can't handle using
the OS directly.

We would then conclude:

3) Linux is not an IDE.

Thank you. I'm here all week. Tell your friends.

 

[Cawas]

Osiris said:


Computers are favourite, although by no means mandatory.

This is why he thought you were being silly. I think it's funny.

Linux /is/ an IDE.

Sorry for bringing the obvious, but sometimes it is actually the
source of discussions as that.

It seems all discussion going on began here. Now, every one knows IDE
stands for Integrated Development Environment, so keep in mind that it
does not need even to come all in one peace, being simple to install,
or anything like that. It's just we might have been used to call
certain software bundles as IDE, forgetting what this really means.
Windows is an IDE about as much as Linux is. The main difference, as
Richard pointed out, is that Microsoft, being the only legal barrier
of Windows, does not build windows packages that come ready as an IDE.

Plus, Osiris asked for a programming environment, not for a IDE, so
strictly he said it does not need to be integrated, what makes
Richard's point even more valid. But there's one big problem there.
Anyone can tell that what he really wants (and I think most reasonable
programmers also want) is an simple and light IDE, to be able to build
a program without having to worry too much about setting up the
environment for it and eventually testing and fixing the program as
needed (notice I'm not saying "compile" or "debug").

This is why most people who never spend enough time on Linux would not
think of it as such IDE, and I almost include myself in that, since I
think I'm still far from properly knowing any *nix. The thing is a
proper linux distribution could be that IDE, I just don't know if it
exists. But I know that, if it doesn't, you can build your own and
make a CD for it. What makes me believe that there must be few distros
around.

And as Keith, I also think this discussion would go better another
place. Maybe in comp.lang, although I'm not familiar with it (or any
usenet in fact). But it still kinda fits in here, since plain C still
is a big part of computers' soul today (and I still don't know why).

The Linux IDE comes complete with a multitude of tool choices for
specific tasks, and you can mix and match them according to your own
personal taste. Personally, for editing I use vim, even though EMACS
probably carries more kudos among the cognoscenti, for the simple
reason that vim can be used, in a pinch, with only one hand (leaving
the other free to hold a coffee mug), whereas EMACS needs at least
three.

Sometimes I wish I've had more experience with emacs or vim rather
than just knowing their names, potential and how old their interfaces
are.

 

[August Karlstrom]

I will be programming in C again, after being absent for some 5 years
from the C-world.
What are the popular programming environments these days ?
windows has Miicrosofts IDE, I know, and Borland IDE's
What about Linux ?
GNU, of course.
Eclipse ?
not EMACS huh ? please... or VIM....can't be....

GEdit is a nice lightweight editor that satisfies most of my daily
editing needs. It is the standard editor in the GNOME desktop (Linux).


August

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Then please explain what /you/ mean by "integrated".

I'm not playing this game. You know perfectly well what is meant by an
IDE, and Linux isn't one.

I'm not joking,

I feared as much.

*sigh*.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Emacs provides these.

and indeed Emacs could be considered an IDE. However I also said

in my experience (and I'm happy to be shown wrong), you do need to do
to get Emacs to do all that.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


I'm sick and tired of your use of name-calling instead of reasoned
argument.

You consider "silly" to be namecalling? Grow up.

*plonk*, and this time it's for keeps.

Your loss, not mine. I on the other hand will continue to respond to
such of your posts as require correction or amendment in an
appropriate manner. I see no reason why newbies should have to suffer
intolerant or biassed postings from you any more than they should have
to suffer Jacob's.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I believe he's being quite serious

I fear so too.

(and, in my opinion, correct).

You seriously think Linux is an IDE?

Is "silly" another word for disagreeing with your viewpoint?

No, its another word for "making idiotic pronouncements which disagree
with reality".



--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

There is, as far as I know, no definition of
"integrated" that's sufficiently precise to settle the question.

I strongly disagree with you there, the meaning of "IDE" is well
established and sufficiently precise. I am really really surprised to
see normally sensible posters defending this bizarre position.

It's also entirely off-topic for comp.lang.c, and I suggest dropping
the argument.

I totally agree with you here. My last comment on it.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Tobin]

Emacs provides these.

and indeed Emacs could be considered an IDE. However I also said
[/QUOTE]

The things I listed can be done without any macro writing. In
particular, there's a gdb mode that shows the current file and line as
you step through the program.

I don't use these things myself, because I am quite happy with an
unintegrated development environment.

-- Richard

 

[Barry]

Christopher Benson-Manica said:


On a single screen, I have an editor window, a debugger window, a
compilation window, a 'run' window, and several 'whatever the heck I
like' windows. I can copy information between any of them quickly and
easily. I can switch between them quickly and easily. And I can call up
additional windows for any purpose at the drop of a key, and they will
seamlessly gain this ability to yield and receive information from
other windows as I direct.

What is it, precisely, about this setup that you think is not
"integrated"?

Several years ago I saw an interview with Linus where he was
asked what IDE he used. He responded vi...
The rest of the answer just said a windowed sytem, and a debugger.

As Calvin would say Tadaa! A Transmogrifier/Duplicaror...er IDE.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Barry said:

Several years ago I saw an interview with Linus where he was
asked what IDE he used. He responded vi...
The rest of the answer just said a windowed sytem, and a debugger.

As Calvin would say Tadaa! A Transmogrifier/Duplicaror...er IDE.

I didn't know of this, but it is a perfect illustration of the fact that
my point is perfectly serious (or, if you prefer, non-silly). This
newsgroup would be the better for people being able to discuss such
things rationally, rather than using insult as a substitute for
thought.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

I believe he's being quite serious (and, in my opinion, correct). Is
"silly" another word for disagreeing with your viewpoint?

That would appear to be the case. Were this the first time, or even the
second, that Mr McIntyre had resorted to such a tactic, it might yet be
reasonable to continue discussing the matter with him, but he seems to
make a habit of it.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people here who are easily capable of
correcting his C errors, so I don't think that my plonking him is
likely to cause any serious damage to the critical self-correcting
ability of the group.

 

[Barry]

Barry said:



I didn't know of this, but it is a perfect illustration of the fact that
my point is perfectly serious (or, if you prefer, non-silly). This
newsgroup would be the better for people being able to discuss such
things rationally, rather than using insult as a substitute for
thought.

Richard you may be able to search the article. It contained some
comments from other well known folks. Many of which responded
in kind. Naturally, some preferred more bells and whistles.

I think there is a bit of difference in what you expect from an IDE
depending on your own ability/experience and what type of
developement you are doing.

But I have gotten into an pattern of joining on off topic
posts so I'll refrain from further comments.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I fear so too.


You seriously think Linux is an IDE?

I seriously don't care whether it is or not.

[...]

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Barry said:



I didn't know of this, but it is a perfect illustration of the fact that
my point is perfectly serious (or, if you prefer, non-silly). This
newsgroup would be the better for people being able to discuss such
things rationally, rather than using insult as a substitute for
thought.

Oh.... The Irony...