Chad P. wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 01:51:49PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
Emacs is an IDE. It just doesn’t have “advanced” features like code
completion based on the type of the objects.It’s even more than an IDE. It’s an operating system.
Ah … but Forth is an assembler, language, interpreter, compiler, IDE
and an OS! Well … it used to be an OS, anyhow. 
Sadly, there is
a set of Emacs bindings for Forth :(.
Charles O Nutter wrote:
a magician to successfully rewrite code without knowing what it does.
I cheated … I knew what the user wanted it to do.
Charles O Nutter wrote:
difference in weight between a nice IDE and Emacs. Last time I checked,
Emacs was pretty damn big.
I don’t know about Emacs, but xemacs-sumo was bigger than OpenOffice.org
the last time I looked. 
Please be kind.
M.T.
“M. Edward (Ed) Borasky” [email protected] writes:
features are much harder (or impossible) to implement, there’s very little
difference in weight between a nice IDE and Emacs. Last time I checked,
Emacs was pretty damn big.I don’t know about Emacs, but xemacs-sumo was bigger than OpenOffice.org
the last time I looked.
Why do you need the sumo, if you only want to program? The sumo
contains,
Gnus(mail reader), erc an IRC client, auctex (a latex editing mode), and
modes for so many other languages, and things.
Someone above mentioned that it is an OS, yes it is, but you can also
strip it
down by removing things which you don’t use/or don’t want to use.
Surendra S.
http://ssinghi.kreeti.com, http://www.kreeti.com
Read my blog at: http://cuttingtheredtape.blogspot.com/
,----
| “O thou my friend! The prosperity of Crime is like unto the lightning,
| whose traitorous brilliancies embellish the atmosphere but for an
| instant, in order to hurl into death’s very depths the luckless one
| they have dazzled.” – Marquis de Sade
`----
Chad P. wrote:
Hardly. EMACS is more than ten times the installed size of Vim. I’ve
also seen situations where a file was too big to open in EMACS, but Vim
managed it just fine. Also, of course, there’s the simple fact that
EMACS == Esc+Meta+Alt+Ctrl+Shift.
“I’ve seen situations…”
Dear lord in heavens, for the love of all that’s good and holy, not this
again.
But.
Installed size is so much not an argument if you have the iron to handle
it. If you don’t, it’s still not an argument since the fact you have to
work on Aunt Tilly’s internet-enabled fridge to do your coding work
doesn’t make an editor “better”. If program performance is a metric you
consider honestly important, what the hell are you doing on a Ruby
mailing list at all?
Just how often do you edit text files of insane sizes again? If and only
if it were the bulk of your editing work, would it be a relevant reason
to choose your primary editor as one that can open those files. Unless
you work on Aunt Tilly’s internet-enabled fridge where you can’t fit two
to use one as a backup for these cases.
And… To save and quit, vim is ESC : w g - five keypresses. With the
shift key having to be held down too - if running in console mode, I
doubt it’s possible to detect standalone modifier keypresses. Emacs is
C-x C-c Space Space (for one buffer) - siz keypresses. ZOMG
FINGERSTRAIN! (Muah.)
It boils down to personal preference and nothing more. Vim is probably
better for people that can estimate line numbers in their head, since
you win most of the efficiency in being able to type the commands off
the top of your head, Emacs for if you can hack elisp like there’s no
tomorrow (the vim scripting language is rather basic and would probably
hit a complexity wall with some problems), or if you can work easier
with integration of all the features as opposed to the vim way of
hopping between console windows / screen wossnames / alien-machine
interface pseudopods.
So… Cut out the editor trolling, neither side has real arguments
anyway, just different needs that the editors satisfy in different
measures.
For interested parties, I use neither side of that holy war. SciTE /
gedit / kate depending on current operating system for simple things or
in a pinch, nano / joe from a console for five-second config file
touchup, Eclipse whenever I need a feature that’s outside the scope of
actually editing text and more the responsibility of a development tool.
(3.2 working sets considered sexy.)
David V.
Charles O Nutter wrote:
I’m glad I’m not the only one tired of hearing Emacs users belittle
IDE users, as though they’re running any closer to bare metal.
Now this is one phenomenon I never understood. Why is that a good
thing?!
David V.
[email protected] writes:
Emacs is an IDE. It just doesn’t have “advanced” features like code
completion based on the type of the objects.
It can be done, check out slime (mode for lisp).
–
Surendra S.
http://ssinghi.kreeti.com, http://www.kreeti.com
Read my blog at: http://cuttingtheredtape.blogspot.com/
,----
| “War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!”
| – Orwell, 1984, 1948
`----
Tim B. wrote:
[Oh, btw, I know that dynamic typing makes some of these things a lot
harder than for statically-typed languages like Java. Doesn’t mean they
wouldn’t be helpful.]
Komodo somehow managed the last time I tried with Python. It would offer
autocomplete for all method calls it saw used on the same object in that
method before, and all methods for an object that was created in that
method. Wonder if they have the equivalent done with Ruby - haven’t
tried the versions with support for the language yet. You might want to
have a look though. The personal license isn’t that expensive either,
and probably for work, neither the commercial one if you’re in a
position to pester your boss for development tools.
David V.
On 2006-08-27, David V. [email protected] wrote:
Charles O Nutter wrote:
I’m glad I’m not the only one tired of hearing Emacs users belittle
IDE users, as though they’re running any closer to bare metal.Now this is one phenomenon I never understood. Why is that a good
thing?!
Some people feel more secure if they’re closer to the foundations.
You can see them in swimming pools, staying in the shallow end so they
can keep a foot on the bottom.
Regards,
Jeremy H.
David V. wrote:
Tim B. wrote:
[Oh, btw, I know that dynamic typing makes some of these things a lot
harder than for statically-typed languages like Java. Doesn’t mean they
wouldn’t be helpful.]Komodo somehow managed the last time I tried with Python. It would offer
autocomplete for all method calls it saw used on the same object in that
method before, and all methods for an object that was created in that
method. Wonder if they have the equivalent done with Ruby - haven’t
tried the versions with support for the language yet. You might want to
have a look though. The personal license isn’t that expensive either,
and probably for work, neither the commercial one if you’re in a
position to pester your boss for development tools.David V.
I just checked again, and their page say ‘full support’ for several
languages including Ruby, but when you go to the ‘compare versions’
page, autocomplete doesn’t have Ruby listed. As that would be the only
reason I would buy it, I find that a shame.
It’s worth noting that KDE’s Quanta wishlist has just confirmed Ruby
autocomplete as a wish. More people may want to vote on it and make it
happen. 129279 – ruby auto complete class method variables built-in and user defined
Jeremy H. wrote:
Regards,
Jeremy H.
My point is that if something works for you, keep doing it. If it
doesn’t work for you, you might just find it tougher to change than you
expected.
David V. wrote:
Just how often do you edit text files of insane sizes again?
Actually, I get bitten by this at least every week, but the other way
around - I get some generated XML files that have stupidly long lines,
and they hang Vim - at least on Windows. I can’t always wrap the lines
with fmt, either - that can break the data.
And… To save and quit, vim is ESC : w g - five keypresses.
:x, actually. But who’s counting
With the
shift key having to be held down too - if running in console mode, I
doubt it’s possible to detect standalone modifier keypresses. Emacs is
C-x C-c Space Space (for one buffer) - siz keypresses. ZOMG
FINGERSTRAIN! (Muah.)
Emacs broke my wrists. Actually, that’s not fair - emacs, non-ergonomic
keyboards, and a requirement to be able to get set up and productive
quickly on a fresh box broke my wrists. Vim fits me better out of the
box than emacs now.
(the vim scripting language is rather basic and would probably
hit a complexity wall with some problems)
…which is where the Ruby interface comes in handy
So… Cut out the editor trolling, neither side has real arguments
anyway, just different needs that the editors satisfy in different
measures.
Agreed. If there wasn’t a market for both, one or the other would have
died out by now.
David V. wrote:
Just how often do you edit text files of insane sizes again?
I do it all the time with Windows “GVim”. It’s faster for me to
right-click on a humongous CSV file, “Edit in Vim”, type
:g/Loopback/d
:wq
than it is for me to open up a CygWin window and do the same thing with
grep -v Loopback file.csv > edited-file.csv; mv edited-file.csv file.csv
or, since the CSV file is going into an RDB, ask a colleague to change
the query to filter out the Loopback.
Changing the query is the correct long-term answer, but when someone
wants the answer contained in that CSV file now and not when that
colleague comes back from vacation, it gets done with GVim. As I said in
another post, muscle memory can be a hard taskmaster sometimes.
And… To save and quit, vim is ESC : w g - five keypresses.
Well, usually I don’t need the ESC, and SHIFT-Z-Z is about 2.5
keypresses by my way of thinking.
For interested parties, I use neither side of that holy war. SciTE /
gedit / kate depending on current operating system for simple things or
in a pinch, nano / joe from a console for five-second config file
touchup, Eclipse whenever I need a feature that’s outside the scope of
actually editing text and more the responsibility of a development tool.
(3.2 working sets considered sexy.)
I installed Eclipse once and was literally amazed at all the stuff it
can do. I wonder about a tool that is much more complex than the
artifacts one uses it to build, though.
Emacs co-evolved with Lisp and is ideally suited to the needs of Lisp
and Scheme programmers. Vi/Vim co-evolved with UNIX/Linux command line
toolsets, as did Perl originally, so is ideally suited to editing
configuration files and doing things with a file that require a little
more thinking than a canned “grep/awk/sed” command string, but less
programming than a Perl script. Eclipse co-evolved with enterprise Java
programming, so it’s ideally suited to the needs of those programmers.
FreeRide, Mondrian and RadRails are, AFAIK, intended specifically to
co-evolve with the needs of Ruby/Rails programmers. Rubyists who use
other editors are probably stuck, as I am, in muscle memory.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0900, David V. wrote:
Installed size is so much not an argument if you have the iron to handle
it. If you don’t, it’s still not an argument since the fact you have to
work on Aunt Tilly’s internet-enabled fridge to do your coding work
doesn’t make an editor “better”. If program performance is a metric you
consider honestly important, what the hell are you doing on a Ruby
mailing list at all?
Yeah, 'cause things never add up.
Just how often do you edit text files of insane sizes again? If and only
if it were the bulk of your editing work, would it be a relevant reason
to choose your primary editor as one that can open those files. Unless
you work on Aunt Tilly’s internet-enabled fridge where you can’t fit two
to use one as a backup for these cases.
Yeah, 'cause there’s only one edge case in the world.
And… To save and quit, vim is ESC : w g - five keypresses. With the
shift key having to be held down too - if running in console mode, I
doubt it’s possible to detect standalone modifier keypresses. Emacs is
C-x C-c Space Space (for one buffer) - siz keypresses. ZOMG
FINGERSTRAIN! (Muah.)
Yeah, 'cause that’s the only instance where Vim wins on keypresses.
It boils down to personal preference and nothing more. Vim is probably
better for people that can estimate line numbers in their head, since
you win most of the efficiency in being able to type the commands off
the top of your head, Emacs for if you can hack elisp like there’s no
tomorrow (the vim scripting language is rather basic and would probably
hit a complexity wall with some problems), or if you can work easier
with integration of all the features as opposed to the vim way of
hopping between console windows / screen wossnames / alien-machine
interface pseudopods.
Actually, the fact that Vim doesn’t use Scheme is a major negative, for
my taste. Too bad. I still loathe the EMACS interface.
So… Cut out the editor trolling, neither side has real arguments
anyway, just different needs that the editors satisfy in different measures.
Hey, I just find all this OS vs. editor holy war stuff funny. If you
want to be offended, though, I can’t stop you.
For interested parties, I use neither side of that holy war. SciTE /
gedit / kate depending on current operating system for simple things or
in a pinch, nano / joe from a console for five-second config file
touchup, Eclipse whenever I need a feature that’s outside the scope of
actually editing text and more the responsibility of a development tool.
(3.2 working sets considered sexy.)
SciTE is most excellent, for when I’m “forced” to use a GUI editor.
Can’t stand gedit and Kate, though.
Nothing else I’ve used enhances my productivity as much as Vim, though.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
I installed Eclipse once and was literally amazed at all the stuff it
can do. I wonder about a tool that is much more complex than the
artifacts one uses it to build, though.
Just as a side note, I don’t currently have Eclipse installed on my
Gentoo Linux “development workstation”. So, I did an “emerge -pv
eclipse-sdk” to see what’s involved, and edited the output file with Vim
…
dev-java/xerces-2.7.1 1,648 kB
dev-java/jsch-0.1.18 190 kBTotal size of downloads: 98,540 kB
For those of you unfamiliar with Gentoo, that’s compressed data,
source or binary, depending on the nature of the package. Most of the
time it’s source, but that might well be different for Java.
Ah, but nobody uses boring stable old Eclipse 3.0.1 any more! How
about Eclipse 3.2?
dev-java/xjavac-20041208-r1 1 kB
dev-java/jzlib-1.0.5 48 kB
dev-java/ant-1.6.2-r6 0 kB
dev-java/lucene-1.4.3 750 kB
virtual/jdk-1.5.0 0 kB
dev-java/ant-tasks-1.6.5-r2 0 kB
dev-util/eclipse-sdk-3.2 80,120 kBTotal size of downloads: 165,416 kB
Ruby may or may not nead an IDE, but does it nead an IDE that big?
Incidentally, I saw tools for C/C++ and Python go by when I searched the
repository for Eclipse, but I didn’t see anything for Ruby! IIRC
RadRails is an Eclipse plugin. There’s something vaguely disconcerting
about people who left Java web development bloatware for the lightness
and agility of Rails having a Rails IDE that plugs into Java web
development bloatware.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 08:05:19PM +0900, Jeremy H. wrote:
can keep a foot on the bottom.
It’s especially fun when someone using Esc+Meta+Alt+Ctrl+Shift makes fun
of GUI IDE users for the bloat of their software, then turns around and
declares the superiority of their own choice in comparison to Vim.
cake || eat
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 04:33:10PM +0900, Surendra S. wrote:
Someone above mentioned that it is an OS, yes it is, but you can also strip it
down by removing things which you don’t use/or don’t want to use.
That would be me.
I just tend to prefer small tools that can be used together easily,
rather than big integrated toolsets like the all-singing, all-dancing
EmacsOS.
Chad P. wrote:
It’s especially fun when someone using Esc+Meta+Alt+Ctrl+Shift makes fun
of GUI IDE users for the bloat of their software, then turns around and
declares the superiority of their own choice in comparison to Vim.cake || eat
Uh … cake || eat? That’s an inclusive or, isn’t it?
Yeah … having just made fun of Eclipse and admitting that I should
learn Emacs to be a “real programmer” but haven’t moved beyond “vim”
because of 20 plus years of muscle memory, I wonder if I’m the pot or
the kettle.
I wonder if there’s anything – an OS, a language, an editor, a
programming philosophy – for which we could get everyone on this list
to say, " sucks!"
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
cake || eat
Uh … cake || eat? That’s an inclusive or, isn’t it?
Hmm, yeah… but it short-circuits, so if the first is true you
won’t do the second… hmm.
Yeah … having just made fun of Eclipse and admitting that I should
learn Emacs to be a “real programmer” but haven’t moved beyond “vim”
because of 20 plus years of muscle memory, I wonder if I’m the pot or
the kettle.I wonder if there’s anything – an OS, a language, an editor, a
programming philosophy – for which we could get everyone on this list
to say, " sucks!"
MSDOS, COBOL, notepad, static typing?
Hal
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs