On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 05:25 +0900, Piyush R. wrote:
I second emacs
Long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the world and a typical group server had
8 MBytes of RAM and maybe 10 users coming in on VT100s, I was faced with
the choice of learning either vi or emacs. The system administrators and
other team members said that emacs was a memory hog, so I learned vi.
Now it’s in muscle memory, and I’ve never learned emacs. But I
should.
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the world and a typical group server had
8 MBytes of RAM and maybe 10 users coming in on VT100s, I was faced with
the choice of learning either vi or emacs. The system administrators and
other team members said that emacs was a memory hog, so I learned vi.
Now it’s in muscle memory, and I’ve never learned emacs. But I
should.
emacs is an interesting operating system, too bad it has such a crappy
text editor…
– Matt
It’s not what I know that counts.
It’s what I can remember in time to use.
It’s a pain when you just need to edit one or two files.
It’s a pain for small projects & one off scripts.
It’s rather slow to load up.
I haven’t tried it yet but I’ve heard from others 6.5 is tighter and
faster in a lot of areas, so it’s probably worth giving a try (still in
dev mode at the moment, but I know several people running the dev
builds).
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the world and a typical group server had
8 MBytes of RAM and maybe 10 users coming in on VT100s, I was faced with
the choice of learning either vi or emacs. The system administrators and
other team members said that emacs was a memory hog, so I learned vi.
Now it’s in muscle memory, and I’ve never learned emacs. But I
should.
emacs is an interesting operating system, too bad it has such a crappy
text editor…
– Matt
It’s not what I know that counts.
It’s what I can remember in time to use.
This will never end…
(there’s a few good chuckles to be found in the links)
It’s a pain when you just need to edit one or two files.
It’s a pain for small projects & one off scripts.
It’s rather slow to load up.
I haven’t tried it yet but I’ve heard from others 6.5 is tighter and
faster in a lot of areas, so it’s probably worth giving a try (still in
dev mode at the moment, but I know several people running the dev
builds).
Charlie
I use Netbeans (dev builds) regularly and find it good. The refactoring
tools work well.
I’ve recently discovered EasyEclipse. They have old versions of the
RadRails and RDT from before Aptana ruined them (I’m not sure, but they
may have even forked the old versions and are doing bugfixes and updates
to them).
There is a known bug when creating a new Rails project - the wizard does
not close (just click cancel after it’s created) and Webrick and Mongrel
servers are not created (they are VERY easy to create manually). This
is really just an annoyance and still way better than dealing with all
the Aptana junk.
If you liked the old pre-Aptana RadRails, but want something updated,
then EasyEclipse is the way to go. Personally, I don’t download the
whole EasyEclipse for Ruby and Rails distribution, I just download the
bare Eclipse Platform Runtime and add the RadRails and RDT plugins from
EasyEclipse to it. This gives a nice fast and slim install at about
80megs which is also easily portable if you want to copy the folder to a
USB flash drive. Since it’s Eclipse, you can also add from the plethora
of Eclipse plugins to suit your needs.
My problem with Netbeans is it was too big, a little slower than
Eclipse, definately not portable, and I missed the old RadRails layout.
If you are not already spoiled by the old RadRails and don’t mind the
size, then you may like starting out with Netbeans.
For just a file editor, Notepad++ is ok for Windows. I liked Notepad2
better, but it only has Ruby support in a patched version which is quite
out-of-date.
Download size (of 6.5dev) is ± 55MB. We bundle JRuby which also
increases size a bit. We are planning kind of lightweight Ruby IDE
without JRuby, Glassfish, etc. as a choice.
[…]
definately not portable
Not sure what you mean by this. If OS portability, we run Linux, Mac,
Windows, Solaris, … .
Download size (of 6.5dev) is ± 55MB. We bundle JRuby which also
increases size a bit. We are planning kind of lightweight Ruby IDE
without JRuby, Glassfish, etc. as a choice.
Unless I was mistaken, it required the JDK which is like another 100MB.
definately not portable
Not sure what you mean by this. If OS portability, we run Linux, Mac,
Windows, Solaris, … .
What I meant was being able to copy it to a USB flash drive and just
plug it in and run the program. I keep RadRails (switching to the
EasyEclipse stuff I mentioned) and a program called Flash Rails
(http://flashrails.rubyforge.org) on my USB drive and I can have my
complete Ruby development environment anywhere. I think Eclipse
probably requires the JRE, but I almost never come across a computer
without the JRE. I can run everything from the flash drive, even with
restricted user permissions, and leave nothing behind on the computer.
I don’t know if this is/was an intended usage of RadRails and/or
Eclipse, but it has been very handy for me. It lets me easily move
between home and work (or anywhere else), and I’ve even had the
opportunity to plug it in and show it to some non-Ruby developer
friends.
The newest NetBeans is great. I use it for Ruby, Groovy, and Java and it
excels at all of them. I’m forced to use Eclipse at work and I would
stay away from it or any of it’s variants.
I prefer to do most of my coding in a text editor. I use TextMate
because I’m fortunate enough to have a mac. On linux I use gedit. It’s
better than any other graphical editor I’ve used besides TextMate. Make
sure you look into gedit’s plugins feature. I use several plugins;
snippets, regex search and replace, external tools, file browser pane,
indent lines, line tools, split view, and word completion.
vi is a much more powerful editor but it has a steep learning curve.
emacs is also very powerful, with a different type of steep learning
curve.
I would say that vi one of the most important things you can learn on
unix, however I’ve been too lazy to do so myself so far and gedit has
served me well. I have intent to learn vi soon.
Download size (of 6.5dev) is ± 55MB. We bundle JRuby which also
increases size a bit. We are planning kind of lightweight Ruby IDE
without JRuby, Glassfish, etc. as a choice.
Unless I was mistaken, it required the JDK which is like another 100MB.
For Windows, JDK appears to be 77MB, which is admittedly big, but it’s
not 100MB. I didn’t check other platforms. And NetBeans does say it
depends on JDK to “install and run”. So basing off 6.1’s Ruby-only size
(29MB) the total would be about 106MB. I’m not sure about the size of
the dev builds; that may be a final size or it may not, so we’ll
discount that for the moment.
Checking EasyEclipse, the Windows download size for the Ruby/Rails
version (not including a JRE) is 112MB. If we go by your size estimate
of 80MB, that’s still only 26MB smaller than NetBeans plus the entire
JDK (and still no JRE included).
And Eclipse is even less portable than NetBeans; it must be downloaded
for a specific platform, because the whole GUI is based on native code
and native components. You can’t run the same Eclipse on a Windows box
as you would on a Linux box, for example. I believe that’s possible with
NetBeans, though perhaps not directly supported by the existing
installers. In theory though, it’s all Swing components.
But basically, I don’t see where the big size difference you’re talking
about is.
probably requires the JRE, but I almost never come across a computer
without the JRE. I can run everything from the flash drive, even with
restricted user permissions, and leave nothing behind on the computer.
I presume you’re running this Eclipse install on the same OS every time,
or Eclipse has started including native binaries for multiple platforms.
Can you confirm which?
Hopefully this doesn’t come off too “rah-rah” NetBeans. There’s just
some factual issues I thought should be corrected.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:37 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 03:06 +0900, Kyle S. wrote:
Scite
When NetBeans is to slow to load, or I’m doing a one off, or a just a
quick edit, I say Scite.
It’s got good text highlighting
It’s got code folding
It has other features, but I don’t care about them.
Still, it’s X only, and you don’t always have X, so…
Scite used to run on Windows – did that change?
For some reason, I thought that SCiTe only ran on windows, until I
went to download it for a co-worker who needed a better text editor
with syntax highlighting on his windows box, and saw some *nix build
instructions and stuff.
This is a nice find. I downloaded and unzipped 6.1 Ruby/Rails version
and it ran just fine on a computer that did not have the JDK. This
makes me really wonder why the installer would not continue without
having the JDK installed. Since I don’t have the JDK (just the JRE), I
wonder if the extracted Netbeans will eventually run in to problems? I
don’t think I’ll explore it’s usage now, but I would be curious to know.
Maybe, but why would I want to? It doesn’t look like it even has any
Rails features. If it’s about getting something as small as possible, I
still want it to be something usable.
