Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] KDevelop vs. Eclipse vs. Emacs

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... I m not currently using an IDE. I m primarily working on Perl, C (mostly ANSI C), and Bash code, with the occasional code in other languages. And I m using
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday 27 August 2007, Omer Zak wrote:
      > Currently I use emacs and makefiles to develop code in projects, which
      > use C++, Python and PHP.
      > I am considering whether to switch to a "true" IDE, such as KDevelop or
      > Eclipse.
      >
      > What is the community's opinion about IDEs?

      I'm not currently using an IDE. I'm primarily working on Perl, C (mostly ANSI
      C), and Bash code, with the occasional code in other languages. And I'm using
      gvim for that.

      It is possible that for languages such as Java or C++, an IDE would be a
      better idea than using vim or Emacs. However, I don't work with them often
      enough to judge.

      Back when I did a lot of work on PHP I was looking for a good PHP development
      environment:

      http://shlomif.livejournal.com/9789.html

      But I ended up sticking with gvim.

      > Any other Free Software IDEs I overlooked?

      Well, there's Anjuta:

      http://anjuta.sourceforge.net/

      It only supports C and C++, and not as mature as KDevelop is.

      > Which IDE is, in your opinion, better and for which language/s?

      Well, I was told Eclipse or its equivalents is best for Java. Don't know what
      is best for C and C++.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
      one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
      -- An Israeli Linuxer
    • Omer Shapira
      Is this a holy war? ... -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Is this a holy war?

        On 8/26/07, Omer Zak <w1@...> wrote:

        Currently I use emacs and makefiles to develop code in projects, which
        use C++, Python and PHP.
        I am considering whether to switch to a "true" IDE, such as KDevelop or
        Eclipse.

        What is the community's opinion about IDEs?
        Any other Free Software IDEs I overlooked?
        Which IDE is, in your opinion, better and for which language/s?

        --- Omer

        --
        MS-Windows is the Pal-Kal of the PC world.
        My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/

        My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
        They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
        I may be affiliated in any way.
        WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html




        --
        Sincerely Yours,
        Omer Shapira
      • Omer Zak
        This is off-topic to the topic which I raised, and to which people answered only by replying to someone else, who had different issues. However, the topic of
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          This is off-topic to the topic which I raised, and to which people
          answered only by replying to someone else, who had different issues.

          However, the topic of religious (or holy) wars in this context is an
          interesting topic to explore at its own right, so I'm accepting the
          challenge.

          It seems to me that religious wars are about choice between two (or
          more) approaches, which are more or less equivalent - but require some
          time investment to switch from one to the other.

          The famous example of vi vs. emacs religious war illustrates this point.
          Both editors are powerful text editors, and both have some sort of
          scripting capabilities. However, to switch from one to the other
          requires some time investment - to learn the other editor, to cultivate
          different mental habits, to re-create one's personal list of scripts,
          tips, riffs and shortcuts.

          However, people typically do not defend their editor choices by invoking
          the expense of conversion to the other editor. They prefer to invent
          all kinds of arguments to justify their original editor choice, made 10
          years ago.

          --- Omer

          On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 08:43 -0700, Omer Shapira wrote:
          > Is this a holy war?
          >
          > On 8/26/07, Omer Zak <w1@...> wrote:
          > Currently I use emacs and makefiles to develop code in
          > projects, which
          > use C++, Python and PHP.
          > I am considering whether to switch to a "true" IDE, such as
          > KDevelop or
          > Eclipse.
          >
          > What is the community's opinion about IDEs?
          > Any other Free Software IDEs I overlooked?
          > Which IDE is, in your opinion, better and for which
          > language/s?

          --
          My Commodore 64 is suffering from slowness and insufficiency of memory;
          and its display device is grievously short of pixels. Can anyone help?
          My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/

          My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
          They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
          I may be affiliated in any way.
          WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html
        • Nadav Har'El
          ... I don t fully agree. Such wars indeed exist, but are faught mainly by trolls, who, for example, pop up on a Linux list and start debating whether you
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, Sep 02, 2007, Omer Zak wrote about "Religious Wars (was: Re: [hackers-il] KDevelop vs. Eclipse vs.?Emacs)":
            >..
            > However, the topic of religious (or holy) wars in this context is an
            > interesting topic to explore at its own right, so I'm accepting the
            > challenge.
            >
            > It seems to me that religious wars are about choice between two (or
            > more) approaches, which are more or less equivalent - but require some
            > time investment to switch from one to the other.

            I don't fully agree. Such "wars" indeed exist, but are faught mainly by
            trolls, who, for example, pop up on a Linux list and start debating whether
            you should use Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu, when everyone knows that these are
            basically permutations of more-or-less the same features, and if choice X
            has some feature not in choice Y, then the next version of choice Y will surely
            have it, and some new feature that X doesn't have.

            The wars become more interesting, and more "religious", when the choices
            are not equivalent, and both sides acklowedge specific differences between
            the two choices - they just can't agree if the difference is good, or bad.

            In real religions, for example, everyone agrees that a major difference between
            Judaism and Christianity is Jesus Christ - it's just that Christians think
            this is a *good* thing in christianity, and Jews think it's a *bad* thing.
            Similarly, in software,

            > The famous example of vi vs. emacs religious war illustrates this point.
            > Both editors are powerful text editors, and both have some sort of
            > scripting capabilities. However, to switch from one to the other

            Actually, the VI/Emacs religious war broke out and continued when there was
            a real difference between those editor's philosophy. Emacs indeed had powerful
            scripting capabilities, but vi had none (it had a simple configuration file,
            ~/.exrc, but you couldn't call that scripting by a longshot). Emacs' camp
            thought this made Emacs obviously better, while vi's camp disagreed and
            ridiculed Emacs' scripting (saying things like "Emacs is a great operating
            system, but it's missing a good editor). A second "religious" argument
            between the vi and emacs camps was the style of keyboard binding. The vi
            camp believed in "modal" binding (you have insert mode, and command mode)
            and in combinations of single-key commands, while the emacs camp believed
            in global binding (a key does the same thing everywhere) and key combinations
            (liek control-alt-a). Each camp thought the other's method sucks.

            Of course, these VI/Emacs wars are a thing of the 80s. Today, both XEmacs
            and Vim have GUIs and scripting languages, and the differences between the
            two editors are indeed starting to look cosmetic, rather than fundumental.
            Both editors are starting to look like operating systems, rather than
            editors ;-)


            > requires some time investment - to learn the other editor, to cultivate
            > different mental habits, to re-create one's personal list of scripts,
            > tips, riffs and shortcuts.

            This doesn't explain the "holy war" aspect. If I have a lot of scripts and
            knowledge about program X, why would that automatically send me to mailing
            lists and write that Y sucks?

            I think that I would write that Y sucks, only when I believe Y really sucks,
            i.e., not only am I used to X, but there are significant differences between
            X and Y which - at least to me - don't look like something consmetic or
            "what I'm used to", but rather very important differences.

            For example, as you probably know, I use zsh. I settled on zsh as my favorite
            shell around 15 years ago - after having previously used ksh and bourne shell.
            While Zsh is my favorite shell, I have nothing really bad to say about Bash.
            It doesn't suck - it's probably great, just isn't as great as zsh ;-) So you
            won't catch me slandering bash in mailing lists and joining crusades against
            it. On the other hand, I do think that csh sucks, and can explain my reasoning.
            I *will* join any crusade against csh that you invite me to... Because I
            believe that csh is really inferior to zsh (and bash) - it's not just a
            historic choice - and I don't want newbies to fall into the trap of learning
            it.

            --
            Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Sep 5 2007, 22 Elul 5767
            nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
            Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The path of least resistance is what
            http://nadav.harel.org.il |makes rivers and politicians crooked.
          • Omer Shapira
            a trap of learning . Touche. ... -- Sincerely Yours, Omer Shapira
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              "a trap of learning". Touche.

              On 9/5/07, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:

              On Sun, Sep 02, 2007, Omer Zak wrote about "Religious Wars (was: Re: [hackers-il] KDevelop vs. Eclipse vs.?Emacs)":
              >..
              > However, the topic of religious (or holy) wars in this context is an
              > interesting topic to explore at its own right, so I'm accepting the
              > challenge.
              >
              > It seems to me that religious wars are about choice between two (or
              > more) approaches, which are more or less equivalent - but require some
              > time investment to switch from one to the other.

              I don't fully agree. Such "wars" indeed exist, but are faught mainly by
              trolls, who, for example, pop up on a Linux list and start debating whether
              you should use Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu, when everyone knows that these are
              basically permutations of more-or-less the same features, and if choice X
              has some feature not in choice Y, then the next version of choice Y will surely
              have it, and some new feature that X doesn't have.

              The wars become more interesting, and more "religious", when the choices
              are not equivalent, and both sides acklowedge specific differences between
              the two choices - they just can't agree if the difference is good, or bad.

              In real religions, for example, everyone agrees that a major difference between
              Judaism and Christianity is Jesus Christ - it's just that Christians think
              this is a *good* thing in christianity, and Jews think it's a *bad* thing.
              Similarly, in software,

              > The famous example of vi vs. emacs religious war illustrates this point.
              > Both editors are powerful text editors, and both have some sort of
              > scripting capabilities. However, to switch from one to the other

              Actually, the VI/Emacs religious war broke out and continued when there was
              a real difference between those editor's philosophy. Emacs indeed had powerful
              scripting capabilities, but vi had none (it had a simple configuration file,
              ~/.exrc, but you couldn't call that scripting by a longshot). Emacs' camp
              thought this made Emacs obviously better, while vi's camp disagreed and
              ridiculed Emacs' scripting (saying things like "Emacs is a great operating
              system, but it's missing a good editor). A second "religious" argument
              between the vi and emacs camps was the style of keyboard binding. The vi
              camp believed in "modal" binding (you have insert mode, and command mode)
              and in combinations of single-key commands, while the emacs camp believed
              in global binding (a key does the same thing everywhere) and key combinations
              (liek control-alt-a). Each camp thought the other's method sucks.

              Of course, these VI/Emacs wars are a thing of the 80s. Today, both XEmacs
              and Vim have GUIs and scripting languages, and the differences between the
              two editors are indeed starting to look cosmetic, rather than fundumental.
              Both editors are starting to look like operating systems, rather than
              editors ;-)

              > requires some time investment - to learn the other editor, to cultivate
              > different mental habits, to re-create one's personal list of scripts,
              > tips, riffs and shortcuts.

              This doesn't explain the "holy war" aspect. If I have a lot of scripts and
              knowledge about program X, why would that automatically send me to mailing
              lists and write that Y sucks?

              I think that I would write that Y sucks, only when I believe Y really sucks,
              i.e., not only am I used to X, but there are significant differences between
              X and Y which - at least to me - don't look like something consmetic or
              "what I'm used to", but rather very important differences.

              For example, as you probably know, I use zsh. I settled on zsh as my favorite
              shell around 15 years ago - after having previously used ksh and bourne shell.
              While Zsh is my favorite shell, I have nothing really bad to say about Bash.
              It doesn't suck - it's probably great, just isn't as great as zsh ;-) So you
              won't catch me slandering bash in mailing lists and joining crusades against
              it. On the other hand, I do think that csh sucks, and can explain my reasoning.
              I *will* join any crusade against csh that you invite me to... Because I
              believe that csh is really inferior to zsh (and bash) - it's not just a
              historic choice - and I don't want newbies to fall into the trap of learning
              it.

              --
              Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Sep 5 2007, 22 Elul 5767
              nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
              Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The path of least resistance is what
              http://nadav.harel.org.il |makes rivers and politicians crooked.




              --
              Sincerely Yours,
              Omer Shapira
            • Omer Shapira
              A true religious war - and this is my humble opinion - requires common use cases, yet different postulates. In addition, some decent amount of people wishing
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                A true religious war - and this is my humble opinion - requires common use cases, yet different postulates. In addition, some decent amount of people wishing to invest their time and efforts into the war must be present - otherwise, the war will fall into oblivion.

                Qualities, that person willing to succeed in the religious war should pertain, in my humble^W arrogant (a la guerre comme a la guerre) opinion, are mental rigidity and unwillingness to separate between the cause, the aims and the means.

                As one vague familiar with dialectics of materialism, I prefer to remain atheist in all what is related to tools and means, yet I do have one sound opinion:

                        Mediocre software may be profitable, but it is boring and ultimately bad for the developers.

                And if we will return to the original question, from which this current thread was forked, let me say that both vim and GNU Emacs had been polished into state which is very close to the perfection, yet KDevelop and XEmacs still have some way to go up the path of perpetual self-improvement.

                --
                Sincerely Yours,
                Omer Shapira
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.