Seeking old post on developers who like IDEs vs developers who likesimple languages

[Steve Ferg]

A few years ago someone, somewhere on the Web, posted a blog in which
he observed that developers, by general temperament, seem to fall into
two groups.

On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
provide the high level of support needed to be reasonably productive
in heavy-weight languages (e.g. Java).

On the other hand there are developers who much prefer to keep things
light-weight and simple. They like clean high-level languages (e.g.
Python) which are compact enough that you can keep the whole language
in your head, and require only a good text editor to be used
effectively.

The author wasn't saying that one was better than the other: only that
there seemed to be this recognizable difference in preferences.

I periodically think of that blog, usually in circumstances that make
me also think "Boy, that guy really got it right". But despite
repeated and prolonged bouts of googling I haven't been able to find
the article again. I must be using the wrong search terms or
something.

Does anybody have a link to this article?

Thanks VERY MUCH in advance,
-- Steve Ferg

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
provide the high level of support needed to be reasonably productive
in heavy-weight languages (e.g. Java).

On the other hand there are developers who much prefer to keep things
light-weight and simple. They like clean high-level languages (e.g.
Python) which are compact enough that you can keep the whole language
in your head, and require only a good text editor to be used
effectively.

This distinction is IMHO not correct. If you took a look at Java, you would
notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's. OTOH,
if you add the standard libraries, you would soon see that Python's
libraries are not as consistent (i.e. conformant to PEP8) as Java's.

What makes up for Python's perceived usability problems though is the
commandline parser that allows you to inspect the type of an object and its
parts of it at runtime, in particular the docstrings are a treasure there.

That said, an IDE that provides auto-completion (e.g. that gives you a list
of available class members) is a good thing in Java, because you don't have
to browse the documentation as often. With Python, that is impossible
because there are no types bound to parameters, so any type that fits is
allowed (duck typing).

Uli

 

[Steve Ferg]

Thanks. Your observations would make good comments on the original
blog message that I'm seeking. Do you have a link to that blog?

 

[Aahz]

This distinction is IMHO not correct. If you took a look at Java, you would
notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.

That's half-true. The problem is that you have to digest a much bigger
chunk of Java before you can start being productive. Consider how simple
it is to write a non-regex grep in Python. In addition, Python's object
model is simpler than Java's, not even talking about the contortions that
Java's static class model forces you into.
--
Aahz ([email protected]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In 1968 it took the computing power of 2 C-64's to fly a rocket to the moon.
Now, in 1998 it takes the Power of a Pentium 200 to run Microsoft Windows 98.
Something must have gone wrong." --/bin/fortune

 

[Marco Mariani]

I periodically think of that blog, usually in circumstances that make
me also think "Boy, that guy really got it right". But despite
repeated and prolonged bouts of googling I haven't been able to find
the article again. I must be using the wrong search terms or
something.

Does anybody have a link to this article?

I think you mean this clbuttic post:

http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

If you took a look at Java, you
would notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.

I don't think it is. Look at things like "private" versus "protected" versus
"public" with or without "static" and "final", "class" versus "interface",
what "new" means, and all the predefined types being reserved words,
including of course the concept of "void", special syntax for defining array
types, and typecasting -- these are all things that Python manages to do
without.

And that's not even counting newer language features added since the last
time I did any Java programming.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <07e5af6c-d41d-4a4a-8e2e-

On the one hand, there are developers who love big IDEs with lots of
features (code generation, error checking, etc.), and rely on them to
provide the high level of support needed to be reasonably productive
in heavy-weight languages (e.g. Java).

On the other hand there are developers who much prefer to keep things
light-weight and simple.

Would it be fair to say the first type tends to congregate in herds,
particularly in corporate IT departments, while the latter tends to operate
on a more individual basis?

 

[Chris Rebert]

In message <07e5af6c-d41d-4a4a-8e2e-


Would it be fair to say the first type tends to congregate in herds,
particularly in corporate IT departments, while the latter tends to operate
on a more individual basis?

That would certainly explain Lisp hackers!
*(ducks)*

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Marco Mariani]

That would certainly explain Lisp hackers!
*(ducks)*

Oh, come on!

Corporate environments are usually positive towards Lisp hackers, and
Lisp hackers are OTOH very positive towards corporate environments.
That's why they repel.

 

[Colin J. Williams]

This distinction is IMHO not correct. If you took a look at Java, you would
notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's. OTOH,
if you add the standard libraries, you would soon see that Python's
libraries are not as consistent (i.e. conformant to PEP8) as Java's.

What makes up for Python's perceived usability problems though is the
commandline parser that allows you to inspect the type of an object and its
parts of it at runtime, in particular the docstrings are a treasure there.

That said, an IDE that provides auto-completion (e.g. that gives you a list
of available class members) is a good thing in Java, because you don't have
to browse the documentation as often. With Python, that is impossible
because there are no types bound to parameters, so any type that fits is
allowed (duck typing).

I suggest that you look at PyScripter.
It's helped if there is a doc string and
if the parameters are spelled out i.e.
not *args or **kwargs,

Colin W.

 

[Steve Ferg]

I think you mean this clbuttic post:

http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides

That's it! Thanks very much, Marco!!

It is good to read it again. It is like visiting a place where you
grew up years ago, and finding that it is completely different than
the way you remember it. It is surprising how much better it is than
my rather crude memory of it.