For all those computer science majors out there, what editor do you use to write your programs in? For c++, I use Turbopad, which is small, intuitive, and has a lot of useful features like syntax hilighting, brace matching, unlimited undo/redo, auto complete, and block/auto indenting.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-14 14:32
vi
Name:
AahPandasRun2005-03-14 14:42
whoops, i fail at putting the right thing in the right box
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-14 15:35
Dev-C++ and UltraEdit when I can
Haven't worked in Unix for long projects where I had to type a lot so I used whatever crap I could find (like vim) without bothering, but since KDE there are some decent editors, and I'll be trying Ajunta since I'm involved in something larger that will have to be developed from Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-14 15:51
Didn't we already have the obligatory editor flamewar?
emacs
Name:
JoeOsborn2005-03-14 17:19
I like TextMate (macromate.com) for Mac OS X, but emacs and BBEdit both have their particular charms. For Objective-C development, Xcode's built-in editor is sufficient with tweaking, and for Java, there's no match for Eclipse.
Text editors are only a decade or three from obsolesence wrt programming, though. "I mean, source code in files -- how quaint, how seventies!" -- Kent Beck
Name:
JoeOsborn2005-03-14 17:22
>>6
macromates.com, sorry, my bad.
I fail at typing.
But it does suck. However, I acknowledge the fact that vi sucks just as much. All traditional Unix editors suck, and the main reason for this is they were designed with cellular phone keyboards in mind, so they have pathetic shortcut keys, out of which only a (different) subset of them tends to work in every machine. All because they're *ugh* terminal oriented. I'd have made vi (terminal and I/O oriented) then moved on to something useful. Even MS-DOS Edit is more programmer friendly than vi if you can't get the frigging arrows working.
So KWrite and all that stuff forever - in Linux. Windows has many more, and better editors.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-15 6:16
>>9
Stay away from me, I don't want to catch whatever you have!
>>6
>>"I mean, source code in files -- how quaint, how seventies!" -- Kent Beck
Where would the good Mr Beck suggest I store my sauce code? Just keep it in a buffer until it's ready to compile and then throw it away?
In a database. It's not a horrible idea, but I'd rather keep my non-proprietary, easy to handle ASCII files.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-15 9:20
>>11
Useful for version control in large projects I imagine, but it seems like a bit of a tank for an eggshell if you ask me.
Name:
JoeOsborn2005-03-15 10:17
>>11
The nice thing about databases is that you can do all kinds of searching and lookup. In Smalltalk, for instance, you can nigh-instantaneously discover all implementers of a certain method; all callers of a certain selector; reasonable corrections to typos; and much more. Similarly to the way in which Eclipse basically just stores a parse tree, freeing yourself from files lets you do a lot of really useful stuff. Not just for version control anymore!
The other nice thing is that the DB doesn't need to just store 'your current project', but rather every piece of code you've ever downloaded or worked on or looked at or, or, or...
Ref: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SourceCodeInDatabase
I'll have to do some thinking and decide if this is a bandwagon I want to jump on :D
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 18:24
WHY IS EVERYONE OBSESSED WITH DATABASES!!?? It's sauce code for fuck's sage, keep your sauce files in files. Can you SELECT COMPILE(code) FROM sauce WHERE ver='1102'? No? Then don't keep it in a database.
I believe the idea is that the IDE handles it transparently and pulls fun tricks to make like sweeter at the same time.
Your reaction was the same as mine at first, but implemented correctly it could be useful. It's not as if you'd be typing in the SQL yourself; that would be backwards.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 21:00
Lol, now I notice I wrote for fuck's SAGE instead of SAKE...
I have a system like that. I don't use it for actual development, but I wrote a system in PHP and MySQL so you can paste code in and people can make comments and such.
In other news, >>31 is a jerk. Stop being a jerk, >>31.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 14:31
Emacs, I guess. It's not my favorite editor in every way, but it's pretty good, and having it mostly built in Lisp is invaluable. However, it's still trying its damnedest to carry on Lisp's proud "outside world? What outside world?" tradition. I'd like to use Acme, but Slime sucked me back into Emacs, because I missed stuff like the debugger interface and automatic function parameter display. Now that I've got Plan 9's plumber working in Linux, maybe I'll give Acme another go.
And, to all you faggots who are shocked by the idea of keeping your source somewhere other than in flat text files, give Squeak a try. It's pretty cool, and I like the idea of no longer having to worry about which function should go where in my file. Just click the "new function" button and away you go!.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 14:40
>>28
You are like three years late with your reply; no sage for Emacs, though.
>>32
I thought about not doing it, but it just makes sense. Why would metadata be confined to the end of a sentence? That's as stupid as the rule that "punctuation goes inside quotes."
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 15:59
>>36
Actually, punctuation goes both inside and outside quotes. The inside full stop terminates the quotes sentence, while the outer one terminates the main sentence.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 16:00
>>37
Well, that's how it ought to work, but standard practice disagrees.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 16:02
>>38
Well, I don't care about standard practice, I follow the path of logic, which supports what I have stated in >>37.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-04 16:04
>>39
Well, neither do I. I follow the path of logic, as stated in >>36.