The chart of comp.lang.c

[jacob navia]

You don't require an IDE for that, a decent debugger should do the job.
Or does this make the debugger an IDE?

You name it, I do not care...

But I have YET to see something like this under linux.

 

[jacob navia]

Oh? For example, under Windoze, I have a console window and an
editor window open. The editor window can access (and list) all
files for a project. The editing sequence is:

ALT-TAB
<edit>
CTL-S (save)
ALT-TAB
make
run (or go back to step 1)
all done (or go back to step 1)

very quick, very flexible, and the error listings are sitting right
there in the command line window when needed. If I wish I can
open further windows for manuals, to examine data files, whatever.
I don't have to change the mechanisms under Linux.

Conceded - operation on an independent embedded system complicates.

Say you want to find the definition of "foobar".

How do you do that with your integrated environment?

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Say you want to find the definition of "foobar".

How do you do that with your integrated environment?

<OT>For me, in emacs, C-c s g. Of course, when I forget that I can
use the handy menu (which, unlike so many IDE's I've seen, I can turn
off if I want more space for code lines).

Really, I can't see where this is going. If you don't like the *nix
way, fine, but it probably does not have the holes you think it
has.

I'd use an IDE on a new system (in fact the last time I used one was
*under linux* to learn how to write programs for my PDA -- kdevelop)
but I'd always be hankering for M-< of home.

Move this comp.unix.programmer if you want get some real
feedback.</OT>

 

[CBFalconer]

Say you want to find the definition of "foobar". How do you do
that with your integrated environment?

Move to the editor, type CTL-F f o o b a r (or something similar,
dependent on editor) and stand back. Note that the editor doesn't
change with language.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ben Bacarisse said:

<OT>For me, in emacs, C-c s g.

Typical emacs - way too many keypresses. In ctags-enabled vim, it's
Control-] (either one keystroke or two, depending on how you define
"keystroke").

Long ago, on a computer far, far away...

EDITOR WARS

[SFX - to strident music, an Extended Mega-Armoured Combat Starship
takes about 20 minutes to pass across the field of view, chasing a...
well, never mind - I haven't got all night.]

 

[Mark L Pappin]

No Linux is an operating system.

Are you confusing a GUI with an IDE?

It seems, Chris, that you are confusing a graphical-IDE with an
IDE-in-the-abstract. Unix (and thus its descendent Linux) was
designed from the start to be an Environment for Development of
software and documents, composed of a set of tools that all work
together smoothly (a.k.a. in an Integrated fashion).

mlp

 

[jacob navia]

It seems, Chris, that you are confusing a graphical-IDE with an
IDE-in-the-abstract. Unix (and thus its descendent Linux) was
designed from the start to be an Environment for Development of
software and documents, composed of a set of tools that all work
together smoothly (a.k.a. in an Integrated fashion).

mlp

Excuse me but then... why it doesn't have the
concept of CLIPBOARD?

All those GUI programs communicate with a LOT of difficulty
between them, because there is no integration at the most
elementary level.

 

[Ian Collins]

Excuse me but then... why it doesn't have the
concept of CLIPBOARD?

Because is has pipes.

All those GUI programs communicate with a LOT of difficulty
between them, because there is no integration at the most
elementary level.

sed, a GUI program?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

Right. I am thinking back to the first IDE I used, and wondering whether
Chris would actually count it as one. It was actually *called* IDE (or
sometimes "the IDE"). No graphics at all. Purely text mode.

Because is has pipes.

True, but my distro incorporates a clipboard, too, and it's not unusual
in that respect.

sed, a GUI program?

Ian: Those who know, know. Clearly, you know. And I know. But those who
don't know, don't know.

 

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins said:


Right. I am thinking back to the first IDE I used, and wondering whether
Chris would actually count it as one. It was actually *called* IDE (or
sometimes "the IDE"). No graphics at all. Purely text mode.


True, but my distro incorporates a clipboard, too, and it's not unusual
in that respect.


Ian: Those who know, know. Clearly, you know. And I know. But those who
don't know, don't know.

Above all, there are people that can't grasp what a CLIPBOARD is.
And how it is completely different from pipes.

 

[Chris Hills]

Above all, there are people that can't grasp what a CLIPBOARD is.
And how it is completely different from pipes.

A plumber fixes pipes but writes the bill on the clipboard?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

A plumber fixes pipes but writes the bill on the clipboard?

I know what pipes are, and I know what a clipboard is, and I know
perfectly well that they're different. My Linux distro supports both.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Could you name an IDE?

KDevelop? Anjuta? Oh, wait... those are for Linux, and despite the fact
I use Linux and have used both of those, I apparently have never seen an
IDE. How odd.

I know people who don't find Visual Studio
useful.

Is there a Linux port?

For a whole week, I've tried to use Eclipse without success -- not full
time, I've a job to do. It seem to want to parse all our files, and
crash out of memory after a long time in our case.

Blech. "One moment while I create cross-references... allocating 9GB..."

We'd be ready to pay for something more productive than our current
setup.

What's this weird notion some folks have that us Linux folks won't pay for
software? Of course we will... but we expect that it be *worth* paying
for.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

[not much about C programming, but I might be able to stretch the "not
all the world's a <foo>" we like to keep reminding people about to fit]

When you say cross platform do you mean target or host? Most will run
on Windows but few will run on other hosts.

Self-hosted. I use Windows at work and for a few hobby projects, do
most of my recreational programming under *nix, and my current project
is to learn a bit about MacOS.

Currently I use Visual Studio under Windows and a bunch of xterms under
*nix, and I suspect I'll probably end up with a combination of XCode
and a bunch of xterms^WTerminals on the Mac[1]. But it would be nice
to at least not have to manage three different sets of build rules for
a chunk of code that's exactly the same between the three systems.

Being able to cross-build between them would be a nice bonus, but I'd
be happy with a uniform way to manage the parts that are common between
platforms, and continue to handle the user interface, system interface,
and actual builds independently between the different systems.

It also has to feel like an application designed for whatever system it's
running under. Switching mindsets when I change computers is enough for
me, I dont want to have to do it every time I change between windows on
a single system.

Most editors in IDE's will do the vi bindings.

Not the ones I've encountered.


dave
(never claimed to be reasonable)

[1] It is ...kind of nice, but not exactly a ringing endorsement... that
XCode looks like it knows how to play nicely with an external editor,
and that `open -a Terminal /usr/bin/vi filename' looks like it can
reasonably be expected to work[2].
[2] I'm sure there are sensible Mac editors that will be better choices,
but I haven't encountered them yet. No, Vim doesn't have a useable
Mac port. There is one, but it starts looking extremely broken as
soon as you try to treat it like a Mac program.

 

[David Thompson]

You seem to be a bit confused. Font colours, or even font types for that
matter, have absolutely nothing to do with any programming languages, let
alone C. It isn't a matter of being a part of the language standard. It's
simply a matter of having absolutely nothing to do with the language.

It depends on the language. Publication algol used boldface for
keywords. The most recent Forth from Charles Moore, the original
language's creator, uses different colors for different token types
and effective times (approximately compiletime vs runtime). IIRC APL
distinguishes underscored letters from not, although this can be
viewed as a different glyph as easily as it can a modified one.

_Most_ computer languages, including C, were intended to be used on a
wide variety of systems and devices across which only a fairly limited
single set of characters roughly ASCII is reliably available, so that
is all they rely on. In fact when it was created C was unusual for
being case-sensitive and thus effectively requiring lowercase; most
other languages didn't, and for compability still don't. Similarly,
many languages made line-endings/boundaries significant; C was
somewhat unusual in not doing so -- except for the preprocessor.

'make', arguably a language albeit a very simple one, even depends on
whitespace difference that usually can't be seen -- tab versus space.
(Stroustrup's webpages have an intriguing proposal for a whitespace
operator (or series of them) in C++ -- but IT'S A JOKE!)

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net