IDEs versus plain text editors

Ichimonji10 · 2010-11-12 00:25:04

ngoonee wrote:

To play the devil's advocate, editors such as vim and emacs are also a different sort of 'hand-holding'. Once you get used to them you can't just 'use notepad' anymore smile

Haha, in a sense, I guess you're right. If you took my argument far enough, that is where you'd end up. I'll admit that I generally hate using any editor that forgoes color-coding. Trying to code C++ without having keywords highlighted for me can make me feel a little naked.

I suspect that the language in question is worth considering, too. I've just spent an entire semester coding in assembly, and have not missed color coding in the least. It actually annoys me every time the feature intrudes. However, assembly has a far, far simpler internal logic than a language like C++. There are no objects, subroutines cannot take arguments, there is no while loop or if statement, and there is no such thing as a block of code. In a language like that, your code _must_ speak for itself. Trying to use a pretty IDE or editor while coding in such a language is like... having someone ask you what you want for dinner while you're in the middle of a racquetball game. Right intent, wrong context.

FWIW, I've never used emacs, nor have I ever taken the time to learn vim. I've just used gedit or, when necessary, notepad++.

Google · 2010-11-12 03:24:24

You can code with while and if and for loops in ASM. At least MIPS has some macros for them. Sure the macro is just replaced with the proper ASM but still.

Ichimonji10 · 2010-11-12 04:07:05

Damn, cool!

I'll admit that I've learned most of what I know about assembly straight from the manual from the chip I've been working with. It offers only branch statements like beq (branch if result of last arithmetic operation was 0), brclr (branch if bit n in memory is clear), and cbeq (compare and branch if result is zero). I honestly do not know if the chip I've been using conforms to the MIPS standard, or what macros are available if so. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cyrusm · 2010-11-12 20:39:17

Ichimonji10 wrote:

Damn, cool!
I'll admit that I've learned most of what I know about assembly straight from the manual from the chip I've been working with. It offers only branch statements like beq (branch if result of last arithmetic operation was 0), brclr (branch if bit n in memory is clear), and cbeq (compare and branch if result is zero). I honestly do not know if the chip I've been using conforms to the MIPS standard, or what macros are available if so. Thanks for pointing that out.

side note:
coding in assembly is all sorts of fun! you tell the micro what to do bit by bit, which is really exciting imo. which micro controller are you learning on right now? If you haven't already done so, you can find include files for almost every micro controller that have handy defines and register definitions in them.

apefish · 2010-11-13 03:27:30

I personally can't stand IDE's. Too much stuff I don't understand. I use nano +bash + gcc + dwm for all my coding. I also use nano as my office suite and my system editor. I don't know why we need seperate programs for programming and general editing. I've never felt like I needed auto cde generation or anything. Most of my time spent programming is thinking and working stuff out, not typing.

ewaller · 2010-11-13 07:31:08

In some ways, this is a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other?

I typically run Eclipse (or Qt Creator) and emacs. I also have Git or Mercurial archives set up as well. Emacs does a lot of things well, but Eclipse does some things better (like debugger integration -- emacs' is a bit rough around the edges in that regard.)

Both are cognizant of changes made by the other. Both can drive Git. Both can manage the Makefiles. Emacs doesn't handle graphical GUI tools, AFAIK. Emacs does not consume 70% of my screen real estate.

In short, I use both on the same project. It just depends on my mood.

lustikus · 2010-11-13 11:45:15

this IDE looks promising:

http://tenaciousc.com/

moljac024 · 2010-11-13 11:59:29

lustikus wrote:

this IDE looks promising:
http://tenaciousc.com/

That looks awesome.

bernarcher · 2010-11-13 14:32:58

lustikus wrote:

this IDE looks promising:
http://tenaciousc.com/

Looks like an interesting approach for C starters. But I am not sure it will be suited for "real" projects.

Google · 2010-11-13 15:00:48

Pretty cool! When I first learned C++ on my own I used DEV C++. That feels like such a long time ago... haha

Daethorian · 2010-11-14 17:08:32

As a longtime vim user, I can't stand IDEs. I tried using one (Kate, if that qualifies) a long time ago, but it just ended with me trying to configure it into vim. Nowadays I use vim and vim only for all text editing tasks, be it editing small config files or managing the large projects at work.
Maybe it should be noted that it is perfectly possible to make vim more IDE-ish with plugins from the homepage.

arlekino · 2010-11-20 16:37:05

I'm pretty much a novice, but I did get to use Eclipse and Turbo C in HS, but years later (with me still a novice), I prefer Vim/gVim, it's just easier and feels less bloated, although I might need an IDE when my projects get bigger.

urist · 2010-11-20 17:04:18

While code completion may be frowned upon, it's required for some languages. Java, for instance, is nearly impossible (for me) without lots of completion. When you see just how big the Java documentation is, it's stupid to try and memorize the entire thing.

For every other language, I just use vim.

Last edited by urist (2010-11-20 17:04:47)

Thor@Flanders · 2010-11-21 18:44:20

Hi,

Want an opinion of an old-timer ? It depends.
I used to write entire administrations in Clipper (yes, I am THAT old) and used...edit. The flat edit in dos. Yes yes, I did not always use Linux, it was simply not around way back then...
Quick couple-o-lines? Bluefish. The Java project I am involved in now? Eclipse, with all the bells and whistles.

Everything depends of what you want to accomplish. It boils down to the right tool for the right job...at the time.

Wellness!

Thor

Last edited by Thor@Flanders (2010-11-21 18:45:16)

Arch Linux

#26 2010-11-12 00:25:04

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#27 2010-11-12 03:24:24

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#28 2010-11-12 04:07:05

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#29 2010-11-12 20:39:17

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#30 2010-11-13 03:27:30

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#31 2010-11-13 07:31:08

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#32 2010-11-13 11:45:15

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#33 2010-11-13 11:59:29

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#34 2010-11-13 14:32:58

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#35 2010-11-13 15:00:48

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#36 2010-11-14 17:08:32

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#37 2010-11-20 16:37:05

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#38 2010-11-20 17:04:18

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

#39 2010-11-21 18:44:20

Re: IDEs versus plain text editors

Board footer