/prog/ editor of choice

*Vi/Vim
*Emacs (GNU and others)
*Notepad
*Microsoft Word
*ed
*cat
*dog
*Code::BlocksI use itniggers
*gedit/Anjuta/Geany
*MOCROSOFT VOSUOL STODIO
*acme/sam/fuck off

ehax my anus

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Previously, I used Notepad++ and appreciated it for its bevy of features. I recently switched to Linux, and am trying out a bunch of text editors. So far, I've tested:

* SciTE (I like it, but I'm not ready to settle down yet)
* Mousepad (too limited, but fine for SJIS arts)
* vim (what the fuck is going on)
* emacs (I just want a text editor, damn it)

What tools other than Visual Studio support a reasonable form of IntelliSense? (I'm interested in C mostly, certainly not in anything which starts with 'J')

In order of preference:

1. Jump to definition/declaration (no, find in files doesn't cut it you fucking neckbreads)

2. Show parameters when typing a function (names and types)

3. Generic identifier autocompletion (type first chars, a list appears)

4. Other bullshit / graphic visualization stuff

Also a decent integrated debugger ("place breakpoint here", step by step execution, variable evaluation and modification...)

C'mon, Borland's IDEs for MS-DOS of two decades ago were more advanced than the shit that passes as a developer environment today.

I'm not trolling, I really wish I could use something more than a text editor with syntax highlighting.

>>43
IntelliSense only works in statically typed languages.

I think you will find that stuff in Eclipse and Netbeans

>>43
Vim has a motherfucking scripting language behind it. I'm pretty sure you could do a lot of that shit, it may have already been done as well.

>>43
Also XCode

I use mostly SciTe for simplicity, but always grieve with the limit of 10 tabs at the same time.

Sometimes I use evim.

And some other times I use Delphi's IDE.

>>45
But a scripting language isn't a programming language, now is it?

Jump to definition/declaration (no, find in files doesn't cut it you fucking neckbreads)
What do you have against TAGS ;_;

>>44
IntelliSense only works in statically typed languages.
Same stuff is offered by Emacs/SLIME for CL:
1. Jump to definition/declaration (no, find in files doesn't cut it you fucking neckbreads)
Compiler/implementations supports this natively, when you compile any definition, if you used high enough debug settings, the debug info will be stored and Emacs will be able to find it very easily (M-. is one key chord away)
2. Show parameters when typing a function (names and types)
SLIME supports this too, called Autodoc. Again, the compiler/implementation adds this information when it compiles/loads the definition into the image.
3. Generic identifier autocompletion (type first chars, a list appears)
Same, inspecting the image live is easy to do, both portably and by using SLIME
4. Other bullshit / graphic visualization stuff
Though, I can generate me fancy graphs of the class hierarchy and all that, SLIME doesn't have that fancy support for this, but some Emacs plugins do. Usually though, I just call a lib to do it for me if I really need it.

All this is much easier done in a dynamic language where any definition can be entered at any time. I don't see why you would need a static language for it. Some things actually seem harder in static languages, since you'd have to parse everything, and some of these editors duplicate the work compilers do (lexing/parsing), when it would be smarter to just rely on compilers to save this info as they're capable of doing much more detailed analisys.

>>34
Why the fuck would you do all that? You do know the system clipboard is in register + right? Why don't you just do "+p to paste? Also, why can't you navigate with the mouse without setting some shit? Works fine for me...

>>43
Vim 7 supports all of this as well, except that graphic visualization bullshit. People think it doesn't because you have to turn these features on; it stays minimal and only does what you want, instead of being huge and bloated like every commercial IDE out there. Here is a small sample of what you can do:

Jump to definition/declaration
:tag [identifier] jumps to definition/declaration
vim -t [identifier] runs vim, opens the file defining identifier, and jumps to it
<C-]> jumps to the identifier under the cursor

Show parameters when typing a function, Generic identifier autocompletion
<C-X> <C-O> while in insert mode pops up omni-completion while typing an identifier. Shows possible matches and argument lists. Some people remap this to tab: http://princ3.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/untitled-2/

decent integrated debugger ("place breakpoint here", step by step execution, variable evaluation and modification...)
Has all of this with clewn.
CTRL+B set breakpoint, CTRL+E clear breakpoint. Breakpoints are shown visibly in the margin.
CTRL+N step over (next source line)
S step into
F step out (finish)
C continue
CTRL+P print the value of the identifier under the cursor
Hovering the mouse over an identifier pops up a bubble showing its value in the current frame
Tons more hotkeys, plus you have a gdb prompt to do whatever you want

Who cares about graphic visualization? That's the job of proper documentation and tools like Doxygen. If you're enterprise enough to care about that, you should already have drawn up UML diagrams before starting to code, amirite???

>>51
Oh, +. I'll have to remember that. Mouse navigation is on by default, it just grabs events so selecting text selects it in vim, not in X, meaning X doesn't register it in the system clipboard.

>>51
Sorry here's a better link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2136801/vim-keyword-complete-when-omni-complete-returns-nothing

People paste the code into forums and blogs not realizing it eats all the <tags>...

>>52
Yeah, for that you can mouse select, then "+y to yank it to the system clipboard.

>>31
> < > < > NYJMUAE(FPWEA)
Now you're just making up acronym expansions (for perfectly well established acronyms.)

AYIAMUA should be obvious at this point.

>>43
certainly not in anything which starts with 'J'
Hey! Hey! Slow down! J is a fine language.

>>42
Why not just run NP++ on wine?

>>56
It's ugly as fuck. It's like brainfuck except it's supposed to be a real language.

>>57

Dunno. I might, but I want to see what the open source world has to offer first. Plus, running Windows software on Wine just feels kinda dirty to me.

>>59
Just use Geany, its better than NP++ and Scite

>>58
It's only ugly if you don't know it. Besides, it isn't uncommon to have a 100:1 code density in J vs. C, making C a big hairy thing by comparison.

Brainfuck is another story. Knowing it doesn't change much. Bitch face. Bitch personality.

>>60
Why is it that people with the worst tastes are always the ones to bump threads?

>>58
You don't think J is beautiful?

quicksort=: (($:@(<#[) , (=#[) , $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#)

It's even prettier than Perl. >>61 is right, C is a big hairy mess compared to J. Because we all know code density is a great thing; it's not like code is ever read again after it's written...

>>63
Hey man, J is readable.

>>63
J looks fucking horrible. It's 2010, we have Unicode, and in light of this I move we all go back to APL.

>>65
I move
ja mówię

>>65
All in favour?

>>65
Chinese looks fucking horrible. It's 2010, we have Unicode, and in light of this I move we all go back to Akkadian.
Huh. I was trying to make fun of you, but I like this idea. (The subtext being: you don't know J like you don't know Chinese. I should have used Latin as an example for the latter part to draw parallels between the language structures but fuck you.)

>>66
Why the fuck would an 'e' need an anti-cedilla or whatever the hell that is.

________________________________________________________________
Postscript: yes, I have been drinking, why do you ask?

>>68
Postscript: yes, I have been drinking, why do you ask?

That's what the developers said!

>>68
how the heck did you make the [hr] tag work?

>>70
It only works while under the influence.

>>70
If I had to guess, it's probably something rather simple like this:
__________________________________
_{Yes, Really.}

>>63
You don't think J is beautiful?
quicksort=: (($:@(<#[) , (=#[) , $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#)

Even more optimized than pointless Haskell!

I like the idea of emacs, re: super extensibility with a real programming language, but I love the implementation of vim, re: modal programming. M-x viper just doesn't cut it.

>>74
You mean you love Vim's design. Nobody likes Vim's implementation, which is a godawful mess of C and ad-hoc extension language. 'Course, Vim's design is terrible too.

>>74
Isn't there another Vi-mode? Mind you, it's probably shit as well.

>>68
What kind of terrible parallel are you trying to draw? Chinese and Akkadian aren't even related, and Chinese is the more attractive of the two anyway. 操！

J, on the other hand, is closely related to APL, but since we have Unicode now we can all use the one that doesn't look like an explosion in an ASCII factory.

>>77
No, instead it'll like an explosion in a Unicode factory.

>>75
Vim's design leaves certain things to be desired, but it's still better than Emacs' design.

>>76
Yes, Vimpulse extends the vi keybindings with the same behavior as Vim, rather than with some other bullshit they made up on the spot, but it still has all the same bugs where the Emacs control scheme will leak through it in strange and unpredictable ways with no obvious way to get back into a Vim-like mode for that buffer and then you don't know what to do and you curl up into a fetal position and start crying and then you drive to Albuquerque nonstop while listening to "Like a Boss" by The Lonely Island which is quite a feat if you live in Australia and then you start to act out all the lyrics of the song but instead you decide that this would be unoriginal and sit around in Albuquerque trying to come up with your own ideas for absurd shit to do when you're dejected and miserable and finally you just eat a thesaurus and start shitting out long run-on sentences that never end because eventually you'll reach the post length limit for Prague... or maybe you won't.