Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Correlation Between Text Editor and Programming Language?

tyggna writes: "The flame wars of different shells and text editors have long been established, but my question is this: are text editors and various languages linked? Do the majority of Ruby programmers use Emacs? Are most Perl programmers using vim?

Please post your editor and language of choice in the comments."

359 comments

  1. Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some editors are more useful or even custom tailored for specific languages or functional areas, and naturally people who use those languages or work in those areas tend to gravitate towards them.

    Some languages (like java) are almost unusable without one of several popular editors, which deal with a lot of the boilerplate and let you navigate around the kind of "a million small pieces" type code you get with java. You can code java in vim if you want to, but working on a large java project with vim is probably not a common practice (I'm sure several counter-examples will be provided below).

    Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second. These are relatively closed stacks and have purpose built (and pretty decent) tools to work with them, so most people do.

    And then some languages (scripting languages, c/c++) are edited commonly with just about everything.

    Outside specific editor features designed with a specific language in mind, or tools which require a specific editor, I don't think anything drives someone to use one generic editor over another one of similar capability. People chose vim vs emacs for non-language specific reasons (for example: number of attached hands).

    Also this is a really lame question. Does anyone really care about editor flame wars any more? People use what they like, what works, or what they are mandated to.

    1. Re:Uh, sure.. by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think we should close the comments here. The parent covered all the important points.

    2. Re:Uh, sure.. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second

      Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I meant as far as having a "one true editor".

      Visual studio is popular for windows development, but there are also plenty of popular alternatives.

      Does anyone do any kind of development for apple without using xcode? I've never even heard of another editor in common use on apple.

    4. Re:Uh, sure.. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      (for example: number of attached hands).

      This was written to satirize the number of huge emacs chords, but is actually a valid point: since I only have one hand capable of keyboarding, emacs is a non-starter for me.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Uh, sure.. by thewebsiteisdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere

      This is the correct answer. IDGAF what anyone says about it, VS has no equal. That debugger is as close to magic as I've seen a computer come.

    6. Re:Uh, sure.. by DataPath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously false.

      Emacs comes with a built-in psychoanalyst - a critical feature for any experienced developer. Especially one using Emacs.

      Visual Studio lacks such a feature, so the logical conclusion is that developers using Visual Studio are simply inexperienced.

      Although, to be fair, Emacs isn't properly an IDE, it's an OS that comes with IDE features.

      --
      Inconceivable!
    7. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he missed at least one reason why scripting and c/c++ languages are commonly edited with just about anything. They're too complex or lack the proper hints to allow easily creatable intelligent tooling. Another factor is timing. Developers starting on Emacs/VI when there was nothing else around kept with those tools. Newer developers grab the newer tools and stick with those. I'd bet the older languages are more commonly edited in text editors compared to newer languages. The exception to this is when one first starts learning to program. Most people start out on a text editor because a full IDE looks too complex.

    8. Re:Uh, sure.. by thewebsiteisdown · · Score: 4, Informative

      We use visual studio constantly, every day, usually with multiple large projects open per box at a time, building to Debug, pushing and pulling from git repo's, and being really productive in the process. Apparently running it on a 486 with 256mb of RAM is, well, your fucking problem. Get a box that can support and IDE, or use notepad. There are hundreds of thousands of VS users that can call bullshit on your rant.

    9. Re:Uh, sure.. by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1
      WHAT!?!?!

      Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second. These are relatively closed stacks and have purpose built (and pretty decent) tools to work with them, so most people do

      If anything, Windows is the absolute king of languages that CAN ONLY BE USED IN THIER IDE. Take a look at Visual Basic, completely tied the VB mouse clicky clicky IDE, then of course there used to be a company called Borland which also made mouse clicky clicky languages like Delphi, a variant of Pascal that was locked to an IDE, I think they also tried to do the same with a version of C++. Then of course, there was Microsoft MFC which was so bad that that they had to write an IDE to even use it.

    10. Re:Uh, sure.. by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      Granted VS can be pretty annoying, it shouldn't be hanging crashing that much. Extensions, even the really cool looking ones, have stability issues. I used to have more issues until I ditched almost all the extensions I had installed.

      Do you have it setup to get-latest from TFS on solution open? I only get latest before I checkin to verify that there are no conflicts. This minimizes changes and dependency rebuilds. Sure YOU didn't change anything, but if you have it configured to get latest when you open solution, you are bound to get other peoples changes in dependencies.

      Why Cancel at #6? That's only going to put you back at #1. You're making an annoying problem into an impossible never ending problem. Was your plan to cancel the build, and then have a stern talking to with the compiler and ask it not to compile dependencies? Only way you are going to control that is to reference DLL's instead of projects, which obviously isn't a solution, but point being if it decides for whatever reason it wants to compile a dependency, you aren't going to make things better cancelling the build.

    11. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you post to right thread dude?

    12. Re:Uh, sure.. by sideslash · · Score: 2

      I agree (as a regular VS, Xcode, and Eclipse user, in addition to Xamarin Studio and others) that Visual Studio is the awesomest IDE, but it's only fair to add that the "E" part has actually regressed a little in recent years. For example, they dropped support for macro recording/playback. I'm guessing their excuse was that they rewrote everything and didn't get around to it, but still... *grump* *grump*

    13. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And there's even a vi plugin for it that turns it into a text editor!

    14. Re:Uh, sure.. by hermitdev · · Score: 2

      I've used VC6, VS2003, 2005, 2008, & 2013. VS is perfectly fine & performs well for C#. 2008 and earlier absolutely sucked for C++ (I've not done C++ in VS2013), because of intellisense, which you cannot turn off. You're writing code, trying to invoke a function, and intellisense kicks in and you're stuck waiting for minutes, while the UI is hung, for it to give you suggestions on what I already know I want to do. To boot: you cannot disable it. The C# experience is quite different, and the IDE was a pleasure to use for that. The debugger, regardless of the language is still one of the best I've used. For C++, give me vim any day.

    15. Re:Uh, sure.. by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      Funny, it took me a while to realize you're being sarcastic. I was thinking psychoanalyst was the name of some new fangled tool.

    16. Re:Uh, sure.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't have to use chording with emacs, if you use emacs with a window then you can use menus for most things and still use it like a generic point-and-click style that all the new editors and IDEs use. However I agree that if you start a text based emacs from a shell then it will be a bit clumsy unless you know how to make it start up in vi compatible mode or have added customization.

    17. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is definitely something wrong with the setup, I agree. We're transitioning to VS2013 and it's been much more stable. A flaking TFS has definitely not helped the situation either.

      Actually #6 was meant to be independent, it's a cancelled build for other reasons.

    18. Re:Uh, sure.. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      BBEdit gets a fair amount of use as well. Some versions of xcode will even emulate BBEdit commands, if you set the right option. (And may have the option to directly substitute BBEdit as the main text editor.)

      But I get your point: If you are writing in Obj-C, you are probably using xcode, because you are almost certainly developing for either Mac or iOS, and that is where you need to be.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    19. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our C# developers have no problems with VS, the problems only really come up for C++. We definitely still have some problems with the build configuration and if I'm being honest now that I've vented some cathartic bile, it's possible that somewhere in our code base there's a circular dependency lurking. Certainly I can't see any other reason that these damned projects randomly recompile.

      The rest of it, VS2013 is behaving much better. And I agree, the debugger is lovely to use, even in C++.

    20. Re:Uh, sure.. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere

      Light years ahead?

      Between Eclipse and VS, I'd pretty much call it a tie. They're both good.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    21. Re:Uh, sure.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      1998 called and wants its arguments back.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:Uh, sure.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      As a long time VisualStudio user I find your problems to be rather 'bizarre' to say the least. I use many IDEs on a day to day basis from XCode, Eclipse, MonoDevelop, Emacs, KDevelop (only for one old project), and VisualStudio 2008, 2010, and 2012. It depends upon what platforms I'm building for.

      I have a rather large Visual Studio solution that contains more than 30 projects including web services, DLLs, controls, assemblies, client applications, and COM/DCOM objects, and it takes about 5 seconds to startup and be ready to work when I load that solution.

      I also don't run into the incremental build issues that you seem to experience. I've been building huge projects in VisualStudio for more than a decade and never experience the problems you are reporting except when somebody was hosing up source control and VisualStudio though files where changing all the time.

      That being said, XCode is a really nice environment as well.

      --
      Loading...
    23. Re:Uh, sure.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Weird, I only used it for C++ from 1.5 until VS 2010. The only time I had the problems you're describing are when the intellisense files were being invalidated because people were storing them (*.ncb) in source control and this was confusing my local VC++ setup.

      I'm pretty sure you could turn off intellisense in 2003 and 2005 (don't recall with 2008 onwards though.)

      --
      Loading...
    24. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hear it is a killer feature for vim users...

    25. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Much like Java, I couldn't write C++ without at least some decent automatic refactoring capabilities (like Netbeans has. I've tried to look up how to refactor C++ in VS and apparently Microsoft decided it was a problem for the "too hard" basket).

      Ada is a language desperately in need of a decent IDE, yet there are none. The ones I've seen still can't pick up compile errors with intellisense, unless you've already compiled the code, which seems to defy the point. Also no refactoring options, nor any autocomplete that goes beyond either "here's the properties you can use here" or "here's every possible identifier in your project" (obviously I want a context sensitive autocomplete).

    26. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Emacs *does* come with a built in psychoanalyst. Press ESC x doctor ENTER. Please do it now; you need it.

    27. Re:Uh, sure.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere

      Regardless of whether you are being serious or facetious, editor != IDE.

      Lots of languages are primarily developed in "simple" text editors, which have a plugin or two for syntax highlighting and maybe a couple of other bells and whistles, but which are a far cry from a full-blown IDE.

      The majority of Ruby programmers likely use TextMate, SublimeText, VIM, or similar. Emacs is used too but is probably not as common as those others.

      But the editor space has become much more fragmented in the last few years. There was that JavaScript-based editor a couple of months ago, for example. (What was it called? Don't remember. I tried it and tossed it.) TextWrangler and others have entered that space and do okay, if not exactly taking the world by storm.

    28. Re: Uh, sure.. by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously. While I've done small C/C++ programs with just a text editor, and IDE is virtually a must for any sort of medium to large sized project.

    29. Re:Uh, sure.. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The main problem I have with Eclipse is its insistence on putting absolute paths into .project and .cproject files.

      Makes it difficult to clone a project, or have it in source control.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    30. Re:Uh, sure.. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > VS is perfectly fine & performs well for C#. 2008 and earlier absolutely sucked for C++ (I've not done C++ in VS2013), because of intellisense, which you cannot turn off.

      Yes, you can. Microsoft doesn't officially support it but it is not that hard.

      http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

    31. Re:Uh, sure.. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm weird. I use text editors.

      On the server(s) or dev boxes, I use vim for anything.

      When I'm on a Windows desktop, I use UltraEdit. I don't use most of the extra functionality, but the brace matching lines are nice. I could almost do just as well with notepad.

      I have to pay more attention to what I'm doing, but I end up writing better code than I see churned out by a lot of people with overly helpful IDEs.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    32. Re:Uh, sure.. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Apparently running it on a 486 with 256mb of RAM is, well, your fucking problem.

      That's a lot of RAM for a 486. :)

      4 or 8 megabytes was typical.

    33. Re:Uh, sure.. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      No. The typical 486 motherboard had 4 simm slots. Anybody who didn't populate them with 4MB simms was a fucking idiot. So the typical was 16MB. These were the 30 pin simms. I have some of the rare 16MB 30-pin simms, but I'd never waste them in an Intel box. They're far nicer in a SparcStation IPX or a Mac SE/30.

    34. Re:Uh, sure.. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      That 16 MB cost over $700 in 1993. Most people couldn't afford 16 MB.

    35. Re:Uh, sure.. by jafac · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's not joking.

      Open emacs.
      Type the command "xdoctor".

      Best part: no copay.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    36. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP was saying that basically near 100% of ObjC programmers use Xcode with C#/.NET programmers using VS coming close. In both cases I know pretty strong counterpoints including devs that work AT both companies who don't use either. Or in fact program in IDEs at all. For some people the annoyances out way the positives.

    37. Re:Uh, sure.. by Herder+Of+Code · · Score: 1

      Intelisense: There was a trick, you make the intelisense files not writable and then it won't update anymore. Then you use Visual Assist and you're golden :)

    38. Re:Uh, sure.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      IDGAF what anyone says about it, VS has no equal.

      This is basically only true for Microsoft approved languages. C# works better with VS, Java works better with Eclipse.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re: Uh, sure.. by Codeyman · · Score: 1

      "must" is a strong word. I've worked on several large projects(c/c++) and almost every one I know who are involved in the project used vi/emacs+cscope + the regular gnu toolset.

    40. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 0

      Actually, most significant C or C++ projects are done without an IDE. It just gets in the way of project-specific tools and doesn't scale well for larger projects.

    41. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      But he's right. Both the VS compiler and the build system are of poor quality and deliver very poor performance and scalability.
      Coupling your development environment and your building environment is of course a pretty bad idea. Nothing beats a text editor + a terminal.

    42. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Sublime Text, which is a simple text editor, is a better IDE than any other IDE out there.

    43. Re:Uh, sure.. by seyfarth · · Score: 1

      I have been working on an IDE (primarily for assembly language) for almost 2 years. It runs on Linux, Windows and OS X, using Qt for the GUI components. I edit exclusively in vim on all 3 platforms and compile with g++ on Linux and OS X, but compile with cl on Windows. Well, truthfully I use the Qt qmake tool to prepare a proper Makefile for the OS and then use either make or nmake. I debug typically under Linux and generally use the qDebug function. I will use gdb for a few commands here and there. I haven't yet needed to use the Visual Studio GUI or debugger. Editing with vim is much more efficient than nearly any IDE. I have done a little VB and liked IntelliSense there. I haven't tried it with C++. I suppose I need to add: "Stay off my lawn."

      --
      Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
    44. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second

      Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere

      This is the correct answer. IDGAF what anyone says about it, VS has no equal. That debugger is as close to magic as I've seen a computer come.

      Yea but it sucks shit through a straw if you are doing anything on a non MS platform.

    45. Re:Uh, sure.. by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      You didn't work for my bosses.

      Cheap bastards.

    46. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VS 1.52 I remember it well.
      I remember it sucked and was barely usable. CodeWright to the rescue.
      Glad VS is better now.

    47. Re: Uh, sure.. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Actually, most significant C or C++ projects are done without an IDE.

      Most significant C++ projects are done in Visual Studio or Xcode.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    48. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Horses for courses, and all that. Beyond that, it tends to get a little religious.

    49. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Name one major open-source project where that is the case.

    50. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borland was the king of compilers. Even M$ used Turbo compilers. However probably this was way before you were even born, young whippersnapper.

    51. Re:Uh, sure.. by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Developers starting on Emacs/VI when there was nothing else around kept with those tools

      I started with VI 20 years ago and i still use it - but only when i'm working in a text terminal and need to do small edits. For almost everything else, i use Geany, which i find the most useful and streamlined editor of all that i've tried. But for the small amount of Android app programming i've done, i used Eclipse, because it makes life so much easier. There's no excuse for sticking with old software just because you're used to it.

    52. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but a lot of the shiny only works with .Net code. The Java plug-in is getting better, but I still prefer Eclipse with Visual Studio key bindings and for native code I actually prefer the old Visual Studio 6.0 above the new ones.

    53. Re:Uh, sure.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Borland was the king of compilers. Even M$ used Turbo compilers. However probably this was way before you were even born, young whippersnapper.

      I was banging keys before Borland was incorporated, you ignorant twat that all-of-a-sudden refused to log in.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    54. Re:Uh, sure.. by careysub · · Score: 1

      Yup. A giant PITA. Why don't they fix this?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    55. Re: Uh, sure.. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Give me vim and ctags and I'm usually happy. That said, for Java I need an editor that has built-in function call information.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    56. Re:Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently discovered this. I pasted the .cs into Notepad++ which has the macro feature, did what I needed to do, and pasted it back into VS.

    57. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Lets take a look at commercial software...

    58. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. MSVC is one of the best compilers in existence for C++. Extremely good optimizer, brilliant debugger, extensive standard library, very forgiving for small mistakes, clean output well suited for pipelined execution and much more. It beats the GCC toolchain easily in every way. Only intel composer does slightly better, and maybe a few very specific ones on very specific code.

    59. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Commercial software is no exception (unless you mean iphone apps or shareware, but I'm talking about serious software here).

      The advantage of open source software is that the source is open, so it's a example that talks to everybody.

      I could talk to you about the experience I've had at many companies that develop C++ software, but we don't share that experience.

    60. Re:Uh, sure.. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Correct, although I only paid $600 for 16 MB. But it was in 1994. It was worth it

      The 486DX-33 processor and motherboard cost another $600.

    61. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have to get some friends drunk but last I remember MS used ICC over MSVC for the kernel, servers, and libraries that actually constitute "Windows." MSVC doesn't much care for C and good luck with static linking.

    62. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > medium to large

      Seriously. Is Linux being developed using an IDE? (Please do not tell me that UNIX itself is an IDE, even though it is.)

    63. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 2

      Small disclaimer: I am part of the C++ standards committee, know a couple of the people behind MSVC, am a Boost contributor, and I am one of the founders of a company specialized in software optimization, in particular by designing domain-specific C++ tools.

      MSVC is a terrible compiler, be it at standard compliance, compilation speed, diagnostics or optimization. Its standard library, despite the best intents of its author, is also full of bugs and is developed using fairly antiquated C++ techniques.
      Intel is fairly bad at compilation speed, and while it does well at optimizing some specific patterns of code, it is generally not as reliable as clang or gcc for the optimization of general-purpose code.

      GCC and Clang are the reference, what other compilers should strive to be, and what sane C++ developers should use.

    64. Re: Uh, sure.. by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      This really all depends on the coder. I work on a very large commercial project written in C++/Qt and Tcl. The majority of the main programmers use Emacs and Eclipse. I use qtcreator and vim. IDEs don't get in the way of project specific tools at all - that is why you tell it where all your bespoke classes and tools are. Most all IDEs understand Git, Subverison and Perforce as well as project trees.

      The reason I love the IDE I use is the ability to quickly follow inheritance back to parent classes from some class or function definition, quickly find all uses of some function in the project tree, and just overall ability to hop around, switch from header to source, etc. Qtcreator even has vim mode, so all the easy text editing I'm used to is right there. I'm sure some programmers have scripts that do these things, or some Emacs/Vim magic, but I don't know it, and don't have the time or desire to learn it.

      In the end, no one gives two shits what you use as long as you're productive.

    65. Re: Uh, sure.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Sublime Text, which is a simple text editor, is a better IDE than any other IDE out there.

      I've used Sublime Text, and if you can get past the awful name, it's pretty good.

      But the reason I don't use it on a daily basis is because of its bizarre interface, which appears to be a combination of ideas from Emacs, TextMate, and Plan 9 From Outer Space.

    66. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borland came close in the late 90's-early 00's... But that didn't last. I guess it was about the time .NET came out...

    67. Re:Uh, sure.. by scchu · · Score: 0

      Does anyone do any kind of development for apple without using xcode? I've never even heard of another editor in common use on apple.

      Yes. I often fall back to using AppCode to work on Objective-C projects.
        http://www.jetbrains.com/objc/

      But I generally agree that Xcode is pretty coupled with development for iOS/Mac OSX projects. But as a cross-disciplined developer who often works on web as well as iOS projects, having the IDE behaving consistently is important to me to minimize context switching (muscle memories be damned). I first serious IDE was JetBrains IDEA, then when I learned Ruby, I started using RubyMine. And now that I'm working more and more with Objective-C/Swift, AppCode is often the IDE I use when I am not working with Interface Builder or configuring the project (which the latest version of AppCode is starting to allow you to do; and with the latest major update to Swift, it may take another 6mo-1yr for AppCode to catch up).

    68. Re:Uh, sure.. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I agree. VS needs lots of resources. Our last boxes were 3 year old machines with 16GB of RAM. VS opening took about 40s. Compile took oh 2 min or so. New hardware (probably mostly the SSD but we do go over 16GB of ram used routinely (web service, VS, SQL Server etc all running on all our dev boxes) so having 32GB helps). Anyways, you need hardware that is less than 2 years old IMO to be thrilled with VS, but I don't want to work for any company that won't invest 2k every couple years for my tools anyways so it is a non-issue to me (I'll leave when I don't like my tools).

      I do agree with some of his complaints though: how VS determines what needs to be rebuilt is a mystery to me. I've literally had the solution fully up to date and run a unit test. It starts right away. Run the next test in the list (in the same class/dll and with no code changes) all of a sudden VS decides it needs to spend 40s building a bunch of stuff before it can run. Still navigate too, find all references, intellisense etc all save me much more time and especially context switching throughout the day that I'll never go back to my make/vi|emacs days.

    69. Re:Uh, sure.. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Perhaps VS users don't have the baggage of trying to save the world via their tech choices and instead realize it is just an enjoyable well paying job. Life's much easier when you aren't fighting to get all your tools to like one another. Perhaps you aren't being driven crazy when you first start trying to do something (because of canned templates that are somewhat reasonable to get you started with): you get the crap in smaller portion sizes not in an all weekend: why won't this damn git repo build shitfest you get with a lot/most projects built by vi/Emacs zealots that think it is normal the have to know where every dll lives and what version it is on your OS before you can get a Solitaire app to compile.

    70. Re:Uh, sure.. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you guys need a competent build engineer and some decent hardware.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    71. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      I could share my experience of working with programmers, but we don't talk about that. Half the time the opensource toolchains require hours of reconfiguration for specific tasks. Not to mention the bloated MSYS ports, which frankly are a far worse issue. (Most people use windows. ) Saying things are good because they are opensource is foolish. The end result is what matters.

    72. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      You seem to be completely off topic there

    73. Re:Uh, sure.. by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. The typical 486 motherboard had 4 simm slots. Anybody who didn't populate them with 4MB simms was a fucking idiot.

      Or in college. Or just "not rich."

      This was back before remember prices came down, in the early 90s memory was still f'ing expensive.
      I remember I could start a kernel compile when I went to bed and wake up to find it still going thanks to the hard drive thrashing.

      I scrimped and saved and managed to double my ram to 8 MB. Kernel compiles took about 1/4 the time after that. I still couldn't run both X and a compile at the same time though...

    74. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      I think my first statement is quite obvious, but we don't talk about that. ;)

      Why should we care that the source of a compiler is open? In the end of the day we care about these things:
      1) If it goes wrong do we have somebody to help us that we can call?
      2) Is there a quick development cycle possible? (Not having to read through hundreds of pages of manual)
      3) Does it work on Windows?
      4) Does it integrate well with existing toolchains?
      5) Are there any ridiculous limitations?
      6) Can we use it without causing a licensing nightmare?
      7) If it does go terribly terribly wrong, do we have somebody to shout at?

      Please note how access to the source code isn't part of that list. We're so heavily occupied that even if we had the source code we don't have time to look at it unless we plan it in our agenda several months ahead of time or do it on our own time. But lets get back to opensource compiler toolchains! GCC is hardly user-friendly, huge dependency chains for all the related tools, and don't get me started on GNU autoconf. I'll agree LLVM isn't a bad compiler, but it doesn't work well on windows which kills any use we have for it. (Because lets face it, the majority of the population uses Microsoft Windows.)

    75. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This depends on how the program is broken up. If it's managed properly then you should be able to use just about any editor. However, having certain features in an editor can make editing much easier. Once a particular editor is used it's easy to become "addicted" to its feature set. This is reinforced by each editor using its own custom internal data management system, which is not compatible with other editors. So, once the decision is made to use one editor it can be very difficult to break away from that editor. Once a user decides they like a particular editor, that editor can become their fallback. This becomes what they use for all their projects. Then when others join in developing one of their projects they pretty much get forced into it. If they don't dislike the editor (usually because of experiences with other editors) they may begin developing with that editor as well, thus the cycle repeats. In this way entire businesses and communities can be sucked into a particular editor.

      While I am not certain this is what happens it's the easiest extrapolation I can come up with that answers the question. And it mirrors the experiences I had at the university I attended. Someone usually a professor or team member would either hands us code or begin working on a team project that uses a particular editor they like. Then the entire class or team would be forced to use that editor. (By the professor, or time constraints of translating the project to another editor we prefer.) The result was the fairly uniform use of particular editors withing social circles. Even if the editors were not well suited for the projects they were being used for. This process was made worse by having promoters come into our classes and give us professional editors that often cost a lot of money. (Visual studio, cough, cough.) Despite there being other editors that may have been equals or superior to the editors we were using. (Have you ever tried getting GitHub working in Visual studio? It's easier in Eclipse, though GitHub setup in any editor is a bit of a pain in general. So, this may be a bad example.)

      As for which editor I prefer I don't really have a preference. Most editors have at least one thing about them I like. But I have yet to see an editor that does everything as well as everyone else. This means that for me (at least for now) I prefer to select an editor based on how I perceive it's features working with the project I am currently working on.
      Examples are:
      Visual studio - Great editor, doesn't play well with others, thus making cross platform development more of a pain.
      Eclipse - Great editor for most things. Lags a bit, not as natural to use as Visual studio. But works well for cross platform development, most of the time.
      Vim, difficult to learn, but increases productivity once learned. Supports many languages.
      Notepad++ - very basic editor, doesn't have many of the bells and whistles that other editors have. Great for getting a small project going quickly, supports syntax highlighting for almost any language, can add your own if you willing to spend the time doing so. The plugins are also great, you can even encrypt the project your working on using this editor.
      Notepad - no good features, it's just there, it's everywhere.
      NetBeans - Kinda like eclipse, but not as easy to use. (haven't use this one much.)
      BlueJ - Java only, great for unit testing, does not scale well for large projects. (You can trick it into working with larger projects, and other editors, but it can be a pain to do so.)

      I have not done mac development, so I can't quote those. But I hope this helps.

    76. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      May I be as bold as stating that you fail to consider everybody's requirements, or at least that we are looking at this from a very different perspective?

      The main OS on the market at this point is Windows, both for professional and personal use. In light of this fact you can scrap GCC and LLVM from the list already, GCC creates large cumbersome executables on windows. Sure MinGW isn't bad for meddling around and some small executables. But I wouldn't want to use it to compile things where performance matters, I've tried on several occasions. I must say I find GCC's capability to deal with the Windows Platform SDK quite remarkable at this point. But the end-performance is icky at the best of times. LLVM simply does not have any real windows port that's stable and performant enough for production software.

      Before I continue I should probably also mention the code I write is mostly meant for hardware interfacing (I guess you could say drivers to some degree), simulation, and data visualization. All these things require high-end performance which I simply cannot find in the GCC or LLVM ports to Windows. And before you go off making bold statements about Windows not being fit for these sort of jobs, I disagree heavily. If the program that needs the simulation code runs on windows it doesn't make sense to run it on anything else than windows for small to medium scale simulations. Interfacing to remote systems is a hassle and generates a large overhead. For the very heavy lifting using C++ is pointless, Fortran still takes the gold trophy home in that area for me.

      And while to the untrained eye the machine code generated by GCC and MSVC might look very similar, MSVC simply generates better code for hardware interfacing, especially its more predictable what happens when you use in-line assembly. The windows port of GDB also fails miserably for these sort of applications, while the MSVC tool chain does a decent job. For simulation it really starts to show though, MSVC simply generates more efficient code than GCC for Windows. Do note that this requires configuring the compiler correctly, something that's trivial to do for MSVC but requires digging through documentation for GCC. Other alternatives like the compilers produced by WATCOM, Digital Mars, Mentor Graphics, and a few others simply don't cut it most of the time. They're either unable to produce code that's capable of using all the resources efficiently, or behave horribly when things like CUDA are invoked. Then there is also the entire issue of data visualization, one of the most important aspects of software development in my opinion. On Windows its either use DirectX or die trying. I agree this is mostly due to Microsoft's doing but we're stuck with it. And no matter what you do, nothing quite beats MSVC when dealing with DirectX.

      This also brings me to the point of more common desktop applications, the MSVC standard library works. If you try to use it like the one produced by the GNU project you'll indeed end up in trouble. Not to mention that GTK is a horrible badly documented excuse for a UI library. Qt is better but has licensing issues all over the place. Wx is lacking features in a few important areas. If you use MSVC it knowing its strengths and weaknesses you have a great *little* tool chian at your disposal. Tie it in with the full Windows platform SDK and you have something you can quickly produce a large application with. Frankly I don't care about the C++ standards, I'm very pragmatic about these sort of things and I'm happy if things work well. If I don't have to dig under the hood too much I'm happy. I don't care about the compilation speed, incremental building works very well and my desktop is more than quick enough for 99% of the cases.

    77. Re:Uh, sure.. by allo · · Score: 1

      I do not think so. My first programming steps were with VBA [VB in Office] (own editor) and Batch-Files (notepad), then i tried really short qbasic (own editor) and continued with borland pascal (own editor). I used Java (NetBeans, JBuilder), I programmed perl [for CGI] with notepad ...
      When i really got started with linux, i used vim for many things, like perl, shellscripts, but python as well. I edit C++ and java in vim if its small or single file changes.
      At the moment i program with C++ at work and configured eclipse, because i wanted more completion.

      Some kind of correlation might be, that you use an IDE for complex languages and/or when there many functions you do not know by heart, and you can use pure texteditors for languages, which are intuitive.

      I would never want to go back to an editor without highlighting, though. But vim is no basic editor, but an advanced one, you should only know, that an advanced editor is still no IDE.

    78. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I already explained why I asked you to give one example that is open-source.
      Because the other examples you and I could give are not code we both have access to.

    79. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying people shouldn't use the Visual C++ compiler. You probably need to use it to meet some ABI requirements.
      I'm just pointing out it's just not a very good compiler. It's something you suffer.

      It's funny you mention that it's good at inline assembly. I've personally found it to be very bad, it's like a huge barrier to optimization and static analysis. It's more complex in GCC because you need to specify exactly what registers are affected, but at least it still inter-operates with the rest of the language pretty well.
      VC++ dropped inline assembly in x86_64 anyway.

    80. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      A lot of opensource projects go through the extra effort of compiling with MSVC on windows. 7zip, blackbox, gtk+, SDL, and XChat come to mind right now.

    81. Re:Uh, sure.. by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Intelisense: There was a trick, you make the intelisense files not writable and then it won't update anymore. Then you use Visual Assist and you're golden :)

      You could also rename the intellisense DLL which solved the problem globally. That everyone at my company did this was a testament to how bad a pile of shit Intellisense for C++ was in VS2005 and VS2010. It's a hell of a lot better in 2012 - haven't used 2013 yet.

    82. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      I was expecting this one about assembly. There are a few things about this one though, the gcc one is a hassle to get working exactly right. (Configuration) The msvc one works easily and is predictable. You need the inline assembly to activate/configure the device. After that you usually switch to full asm functions to fetch and write data and c++ functions for everything else. The register blocking and overwriting issues most people mention usually results from incompetence with assembly more so than from compiler behaviour. But that's an educational flaw in the current generation of programmers. Building up an OS from the bare metal ought to be a graduation requirement. To get around it in the x64 versions you need to get a bit creative with linking though. But I'm so not getting into explaining that one. Lets say very few x64 device drivers need more than the standard x86 instruction set. Weirdly enough it still takes less time than switching to GCC, WDK and GCC really do NOT like each other. We tried it once and lost a lot of time and returned to msvc. The macros don't work, GCC also has very peculiar behaviour that you need to control with switches. (A colleague started calling it GNU Switch Roulette. ) Ideally we'd just scrape both compilers and start from scratch, but then we'd end up with windows compatible LLVM I guess. Or I should stop getting involved with these coding projects and stick with hardware.

    83. Re: Uh, sure.. by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I don't what that has to do with it. They use a real build system, not the IDE

    84. Re: Uh, sure.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Crappy standards conformance, and that's with Herb Sutter in charge. Both g++ and clang have had C++11 conformance for a long time now, and VS2013 doesn't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    85. Re:Uh, sure.. by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Does anyone do any kind of development for apple without using xcode? I've never even heard of another editor in common use on apple.

      All the cool kids use Sublime Text these days.

    86. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Standard library != Library that follows standards!

      You should mostly be looking in the direction of windows.h when working on Windows.

    87. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      MSVC is the compiler, not the GUI (that would be MSVS?).

    88. Re:Uh, sure.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that vim isn't a dumb text editor. Add in ctags and enable syntax highlighting and it becomes a lite IDE.

    89. Re: Uh, sure.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My point is that VC++ is inferior to the GCC toolchain in at least one way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    90. Re: Uh, sure.. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at least you have useful easy to access documentation with VC++. So when it messes up (as all compiler tool chains invariably do) , you have something to check before you switch to mailing lists, forums, and IRC.

    91. Re: Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it goes wrong do we have somebody to blame.

      FTFY

  2. Emacs, vi, IDE by mrflash818 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In that order.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:Emacs, vi, IDE by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Depends on whose code I'm editing.

      If it's my own, then emacs.

      If it's someone else's, then usually vi since I'm probably in a hurry.

      IDEs I play with every once in a while, but invariably I hit some silly brick wall where it's better/faster/dareIsayeasier to bring it up in emacs.

      I have been using notepad++ on Windows a lot lately, and just wondering what the closest thing to that there is on Linux. It's the only thing I've seen that combines the feature set of emacs with the snappiness of vi while still having a pretty consistent GUI. I have to admint I learned a lot about what emacs can do by discovering features and plugins in notepad++ and Googling how to do that in emacs :-P (speedbar, whitespace-mode)

      Sublime Text editor was a lot of fun to play with if only for the multi cursor mode, but there's a great howto on doing the same thing in emacs.

    2. Re: Emacs, vi, IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geany is very similar to notepad++. Geany has a bit more likable color schemes, for syntax highlighting, etc. imo.

    3. Re: Emacs, vi, IDE by mirix · · Score: 1

      I like Geany quite a lot, I use it on windows and linux.

      It has plugins like notepad++; whether there are as many available I'm not sure.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re: Emacs, vi, IDE by hughbar · · Score: 1

      Me too for Geany. Use it for Perl.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  3. I vim and Perl by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    The reason I vim and Perl is that I run Perl on a unix system. When I run it on windows, I use Notepad++. So I think it might have more to do with the operating systems than with personal preferences.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I vim and Perl by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If I want to view/edit random code I go for VIM as long as it's a small scale action. If I'm going to work with larger scale projects in C++ or Java it's Eclipse. For hash-coding in C# it's Visual studio.

      I gave up on Emacs 20 years ago because it was never as default on the systems I was on then and it was too much of a hassle to build it on them.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  4. VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VIM + Python

    1. Re:VIM by Noryungi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is my problem in the vim-vs-emacs debate:

      Vim is pretty much the standard vi/editor/$VISUAL on every Linux distribution I use. Emacs is usually an extra package. Therefore, vim is installed, while emacs is not.

      Once you have mastered the basic commands of vi, and its mode dichotomy (edit/command) you can edit text in a very efficient manner. Not to mention the goodies of vim, such as "vim -d" or "vim -x". I am so used to vim that, these days, I find myself hitting the Escape key under Word or Firefox. And I still have a lot to learn!

      Emacs, on the other hand, is a complex, jumbled mess, a crazy carpal-inducing kitchen sink of a program that requires you to master its twisted logic before you can actually benefit from all the lispy goodness hiding inside. In the meantime, if you master, let's say, about 20 commands under vim, you undertand that its power is in its own logic, so to speak. Vim is complex, but it seems to me much more predictable and logically organized than Emacs.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    2. Re:VIM by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

      Thats a fair answer, and a fair criticism of Emacs. Nearly everyone I've talked to who uses VIM, like I said just uses it because someone told them to in the past and have never tried anything else.

    3. Re:VIM by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      Well, I was told to learn vi because... it's everywhere.

      And, as I have said, while far from being a vim master, I really believe learning 20+ commands is enough to make you very productive under vim.

      I have tried and tried and tried to ''get'' emacs, but I always give up after learning 5 or 6 Ctrl+something commands. Maybe I'll just give up one day and use vile, but vim is enough for my needs right now.

      As the joke goes, "vi a veggie peeler knife, vim is a finely-honed, precision surgeon knife and emacs is a light saber. Most of the time, I cook, but, once in a while I need to fight hordes of battle droids."...

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    4. Re:VIM by BitcoinBenny · · Score: 1

      Vim is the best editor. I think many people who use Sublime or some other random text editor and think it is good have not devoted enough time to understanding Vim. If you know Vim well, it may very well be the last editor you ever need to use. I'm also under 40, and nobody forced me at gunpoint to pick up Vim, and have at some point at least tried every major IDE and editor in existence.

    5. Re:VIM by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

      Funny, I feel the same way about VIM, I tried to learn it, after all a lot of people use it, and finally gave up after trying to remember 5 or 6 mode change seemingly random ctrl + : + ???? key stroke combinations.

    6. Re:VIM by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I do, but I learned to code on ultrasparcs in the computer lab, so vim was about all that would run. I probably never gave emacs a fair shake in later days, but I never saw a compelling reason to switch and enjoy the benefits of vim (I'm a minimalist at heart). I almost always have an instance of gvim running for quick data manipulation beside visual studios in my daily grind, in addition to the vsvim plugin for visual studios. Age 33.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    7. Re:VIM by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      That's funny. It's almost as if some people just can't grok emacs while other can't grok vim.

      I suspect you are right in this: maybe the first exposure is the one determinant factor. If you learn Emacs first (I remember trying it for the first time on my Amiga 500 - Lord, I am getting old) then you are going emacs all the way. If it's vi you learn first, then vim is the one you use. Almost philosophical.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    8. Re:VIM by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

      I think I might have to give VIM yet another try, thing this will be try 7 or 8 now.

      Eclipse used to have an Emacs key binding plugin, but it was abandoned a few years ago, and its !uck&ing annoying going back and forth between Eclipse and Emacs key binding.

    9. Re:VIM by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      "Just a question. Is there anyone out there younger than around 40 who uses VIM because of their own choice?"

      I'm 36, so yes.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    10. Re:VIM by c · · Score: 1

      Vim is pretty much the standard vi/editor/$VISUAL on every Linux distribution I use.

      It is for me too, after I type "apt-get purge nano".

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:VIM by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      I really didn't get vi, when I first started using Unix, so I used Emacs. Now that I've learned vi, though, I'd never go back. Nothing's as fast as vi, when you know what you're doing.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    12. Re:VIM by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I started life using emacs, then switched to VIM for no real reason, other than it was easier to set up tabs the way I wanted them in a vimrc file for one particular project. I'm thinking of switching back to emacs, though, once again for no real reason.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 here, I use Vim because the default Emacs UI and logo looked hideous so I was immediately turned off of it when I was looking for text editors. I know that I can just use Emacs in command line mode, but the damage was already done. Emacs also feels a lot more like an IDE with just about everything you can imagine bundled into it, and I didn't switch to using Gnu/Linux just so I can jump from one needlessly complex thing to another. Vim is completely alien when it comes to text editors, but it's relatively easy for me to just turn on to do what I need with it and be done after going through the pain of learning it for the first time.

    14. Re:VIM by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      You should also rule out people working on remote machines with slow / high latency connections. I tried emacs, various IDEs, but it quickly gets frustrating.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    15. Re:VIM by j127 · · Score: 1

      If you install Pentadactyl for Firefox, you can use ESC and other Vim-like commands in the browser. I get the nightly build from here: http://5digits.org/nightlies

    16. Re:VIM by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      I'm 37 and use VIM for VHDL development. Most of my coworkers in their 30s use VIM or Emacs, while those in their 20s use Notepad++. This is for hardware engineers; I dunno what software uses.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    17. Re:VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched from emacs to vi (specifically nvi, later vim) around '97-98, never looked back.

      Language of choice? OCaml. Although I do more C/C++/Python.

    18. Re:VIM by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      What about if you learned pico first? :D

      That was the editor I was exposed to in college. When I decided I wanted to be a sysadmin years later I taught myself vi because I knew I'd be laughed out of the building if I ran "pico /etc/sendmail.cf" or such.

    19. Re:VIM by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Just a question. Is there anyone out there younger than around 40 who uses VIM because of their own choice?

      I'm 45 now but I picked Vim because I liked it about 8 years ago.

  5. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a dumb question.

    Anyway: UltraEdit, Notepad++, PhpStorm pretty much cover everything I need for my perl/PHP needs.

  6. vim c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vim c

  7. Perl & EPIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For any structured perl application (not the 30 minutes to automate something once) I generally get EPIC (An Eclipse add-on) going. Othewise Notepad++ on Windows, or vi usually suffices on Linux or Solaris....

  8. Old School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C99 in vim

    1. Re:Old School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ansi c for the mentally insane...

  9. kate editor from kde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for web development PHP, JS, LUA etc

  10. vim and Pthon... by thewebsiteisdown · · Score: 1

    Oops... I meant Visual Studio and C#

  11. Oldster, not hipster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    C, vi. My IDE is make. Now get off my lawn!

    1. Re:Oldster, not hipster by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      cat, sed and echo. What's "make"? A is certainly for Aho, and K for Kernighan, but I have no idea who "M" and "E" are . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  12. One editor, multiple languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Editor: emacs
    Languages of choice: C++, ocaml, latex, perl, python

  13. vim & nvi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vim - Python, Ruby
    nvi - C, Makefiles

  14. Applesoft BASIC in Applesoft BASIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes

  15. C/C++, perl, python, Java by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Mostly vim, although I'll drop to Eclipse if I need a debugger for Java.

  16. BBEdit and Emacs by mah! · · Score: 1

    wait, what?
    Yes, BBEdit and Emacs, side-to-side, one for its clean interface, multi-file search GUI, etc. and the other one for its macros and programmability.
    Now if only Python had a good *native* GUI debugger on Mac OS X that'd be useful.

  17. No love for nano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No love for nano?

    1. Re:No love for nano? by bazmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      No love for nano?

      No.

    2. Re:No love for nano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No love for ed?
      ?
      ?

    3. Re:No love for nano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No love for nano?

      No.

      It should be "na, no."

  18. Double troll by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    Wow. Congrats on your double troll!
    PS: Vim-ruby FTW!

  19. Eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    PHP, HTML, Javascript = Eclipse
    Simple edits = Scite

    1. Re:Eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PHP, HTML, Javascript = Eclipse
      Simple edits = Scite

      Only shows you don't value your time.

      nano = configs, shell bits
      scite = everything else

  20. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by bobbied · · Score: 1

    In that order.

    FIFY.... (IMHO)

    Everybody doing Linux work needs to know VI, at least well enough to get Emacs running. If you want to do an IDE, you are going to need X which used to require editing that huge config file where I used VI. Why bother with Emacs, unless you write LISP code anyway... Syntax highlighting? Does that even work in the terminal version?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  21. gedit 4 life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gedit on gnome2 on Linux 2.6.32-62-generic #125-Ubuntu SMP Mon Jun 9 16:05:41 UTC 2014 i686 GNU/Linux
    idle otherwise

    1. Re:gedit 4 life by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Scite is not only generally better, its also cross platform.

  22. Visual Studio most common for .NET (VB, C#) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Research shows most VB.NET and C# programmers use Visual Studio.

    1. Re:Visual Studio most common for .NET (VB, C#) by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Research shows most VB.NET and C# programmers use Visual Studio.

      Well, that's basically a tautology. It's like saying "research shows most people think water feels wet." True statement, but so what?

      Considering the Windows-centric nature of .NET, it's hardly surprising that Visual Studio has far more VB and C# programmers than any other IDE.

      And yes, I know about MonoDevelop.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Visual Studio most common for .NET (VB, C#) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you been whooshed.

    3. Re:Visual Studio most common for .NET (VB, C#) by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I think you been whooshed.

      Tell that to the person who modded the OP as "Informative."

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  23. NEdit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEdit for VHDL / Verilog / SystemVerilog, an oldie but a goodie. Not a programming language mind you, but a hardware design language. And Linux due to offloading the legwork of simulations and chip builds from a local machine which is used for reading ... this.

  24. vim and C++ by dr_leviathan · · Score: 1, Informative

    I use vim for almost 100% of all editing. My main programming language is C++

    --
    Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
    1. Re:vim and C++ by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      I use vim almost exclusively (windows or linux), and use it for PHP, Perl, and C++.

      It just works, why get all fancy?

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    2. Re:vim and C++ by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I love vim, but only for Python. I do not know how you would survive using vim for C++ since projects written in that language are always large.

      Given the absolute bottomless complexity of C++, what do you use as a debugger?

    3. Re: vim and C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the same. Vim and c++. There are plugins that help browse source files and I use gdb or lldb to debug. Works well. That said, I'll occasionally drop into Qt creator, since I usually use CMake which will generate a project for me. Qt creator allows me to do some larger refactorings more quickly.

    4. Re:vim and C++ by psithurism · · Score: 1

      I use vim + ctags for large projects (C / C++). I don't know how to survive without it.

      debugger?

      :!gdb

      For the original post's question:
      vim and C / C++ programming
      vim and bash
      vim and python
      vim and perl
      netbeans and java

    5. Re:vim and C++ by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      I used to use vim, but then switched to Qt's Creator even for non-Qt projects. VIM is nice when you're just writing a simple program, but for anything complex, I need to be able to find function definitions, jump through several function calls in a few seconds in files I've never seen, and still be fast.

      Advantages:
      * Autocomplete for functions, variables, classes, etc. (ctrl+space)
      * Jump to definition for variables, functions, classes (F2)
      * Keyboard-centric searching (search by class, method, filename, etc) (ctrl+K)
      * Visual debugging with GDB (attach to sessions, change complex variables, switch threads, etc)
      * Has a FakeVIM module;)
      * Very fast and rock-solid stable
      * Free (both in beer/libre)
      * Cross-platform (used it on Linux/Mac/Windows. I prefer it to Visual Studio which is far too slow and has really wonky keyboard shortcuts)

      Disadvantages:
      * Have to use a windowing system. I still use VIM on remote systems.

      There's just so many advantages of having an editor which understands your code model. Forget whether the function you're calling is camelCase or uses_underscores is a thing of the past for me resulting in most of my code compiling the very first time -- and when it doesn't, inline errors!

      You can get your OSS fix here.
      (For a generic project, just click New->Import Project->Existing project.)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    6. Re:vim and C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! I use Vim for general C and C++ editing but Qt Creator for handling larger projects.

      Also note that Qt Creator supports CMake out of the box so creating projects from a CMake-based one is simple.

    7. Re:vim and C++ by zbobet2012 · · Score: 1

      You do realize the VIM literally does everything you listed as advantages right? Ctags for jump to definition and search. YouCompleteMe for auto completion (or like one of 90 million other plugins). GDBVIM for debuggers (or one of the many other plugins) and it is free and closs platform? I mean I am an emacs user and I know this shit?

    8. Re:vim and C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the absolute bottomless complexity of C++, what do you use as a debugger?

      cgdb

  25. OK by slapout · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Please post your editor and language of choice in the comments."

    O'Reilly and English

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:OK by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Sir or Madam, that was sweet.

    2. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this is slashdot. Shouldn't that be O'Reilly and Klingon?

  26. Whatever by Fished · · Score: 2

    I was an Emacs dude for a long time and still use it. Then I tried RubyMine, and eventually upgraded to IDEA. The IDE features are sometimes handy. I also use vi very regularly for quick edits of small scripts.

    I would no more stick to one editor than I would stick to one programming language. Right tool for the job is the key.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  27. Perl and Vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, the "reason" is:
    Programming language of any sensibility (Bash is not) that is available on "every" unix system: Perl
    Editor of any usefulness that is available on "every" unix system: vi

    So through sysadmin experience, I "learned" to use the very basics.

    1. Re:Perl and Vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, no. vi, yes, though you may get stuck with busybox vi or worse, vim. perl, no. Plenty distributions have perl available but not necessarily installed on any particular system, much like python may seem ubiquitous for, say, debian users, but elsewhere is optional. So for portability you get to use bourne (not again) shell, awk, and the basic shell utilities. Even C isn't ubiquitous, but may be more often available and when not, easier to install than perl or python.

  28. emacs for lisp, vim for other code, vile for text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vim and other vi's don't have a decent lisp mode, as far as I can tell.

    emacs has the best lisp mode by far, but for everything else it just makes my wrists ache to have to type control-meta-alt-whatever

    I love editing ordinary text in vile because it's got some features that I've written macros around
    that just don't seem to be there in other editors. (of course they're there somewhere in vim and emacs,
    but they don't fall to hand as easily.

  29. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anrego · · Score: 2

    There's always nano :)

  30. For some languages .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the emacs psychiatrist comes in handy.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  31. N/A by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't use one language, I don't use one machine, I don't use one operating system, I don't use one editor and I don't program into any language with just one of those editors. So, to me, the entire topic reduces to "That doesn't even make sense."

    1. Re:N/A by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because you don't understand the meaning of the words "majority" and "most"?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:N/A by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Those words were used in reference to specific subsets that do not apply to me. The question I addressed was "are text editors and various languages linked?", which is generic and has been answered thus by many who do not code in Ruby or Perl. "So, to me" was provided to set my response aside as specific to myself.

      Before you snark, make sure you not only know how to diagram a sentence, but the logic in an article and a response to it.

    3. Re:N/A by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Those words were used in reference to specific subsets that do not apply to me

      They're clearly examples to clarify the submitter's question.

      I don't use one language, I don't use one machine, I don't use one operating system, I don't use one editor and I don't program into any language with just one of those editors.

      Surely, then, your answer to the question - "are text editors and various languages linked?" - is a simple "no," rather than "the question makes no sense!"

      That is, of course, only if one assumes it is meant to be answered solely for oneself, and not meant - as it pretty clearly is - to cover the generality of programming around the world. Note also that the "linkedness" under discussion is a statistical property, not a binary one. You may not "program into any language with just one of those editors" but you might favour an editor for a particular language.

      Before you snark

      Too late, even before this post.

      make sure you not only know how to diagram a sentence, but the logic in an article and a response to it.

      Could we not just discuss it like normal humans instead? If I asked you to call me an ambulance, would you point out that you couldn't logically do so because I'm clearly not an ambulance, and then go on your way?

      You'd be a shoe-in for an anti-Turing test.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  32. emacs, vi in a pinch. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I have to write a tool, I create a new buffer in emacs and have at it. If I'm standing in front of a machine fixing it, I'll reach for vi, only because it's on every platform.

    I work in almost a 100% UNIX environment and what I generally see on people's desktops are: emacs, Eclipse (some flavor) and IntelliJ.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:emacs, vi in a pinch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emacs of course! Languages = C, Perl, HTML. Why even plain text. I even create my blog pages in Emacs then C&P into Wordpress.

  33. C# and VS are obviously linked by neminem · · Score: 2

    See title

    VS also handles javascript pretty well these days, so I rarely have to leave the VS bubble - which is nice, as VS is actually a pretty darn good IDE.

    Very recently I've been fooling about with learning Android development, for which I use IDEA. It's no VS (I miss VS), but it's also no (major ew) Eclipse.

    On the rare occasion that I have to edit some other type of code file (or the slightly less rare occasion that I have to edit an xml file), I use notepad++. Unless it's a really simple edit, in which case I use regular notepad.

    On the rare occasion that I'm in a linux environment and I have to edit a text-type file, I use pico/nano, because screw emacs *and* VI. :p

    1. Re:C# and VS are obviously linked by raddan · · Score: 1

      If you're doing Javascript in Visual Studio, then you have no excuse not to check out TypeScript. Likewise, in IDEA, you should check out Scala.js. It's surprisingly mature for something that just got off the ground. Javascript needs to die.

  34. Notepad++ / Python by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    On *nix I most use Vim. If I'm not using Python, I'm using C.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  35. C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by RedHackTea · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quill pen on papyrus. I have a dedicated typist to re-type all of it when I'm done into whatever editor it chooses. I also have a stenographer for when my hand gets tired. I never get compilation errors.

    --
    The G
    1. Re:C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Butcher!

      I prefer to pluck a single hair from the ass of the nearest ermine, dip it in kokeiboku ink made from Visayan deer horn and charcoaled relictus cycad, then waft my thoughts across 15-momme silken paper balanced on the ass of a Xianbei virgin.

    2. Re:C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quill pen on papyrus. I have a dedicated typist to re-type all of it when I'm done into whatever editor it chooses. I also have a stenographer for when my hand gets tired. I never get compilation errors.

      I used to jodle C64-programs to a cassette tape, but that was before my balls dropped.

    3. Re:C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by pikine · · Score: 1

      Pfft, I am my own typist. I typed a C program on a mechanical typewriter the other day. The typewriter was missing some of the keys, but I managed to use the trigraphs.

      --
      I once had a signature.
    4. Re:C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While obviously a joke, it's still a good point. I use a pen and paper to work out the algorithms, and maybe some API stuff, of my programs before I sit down at a computer. Computers are great, but it's difficult to draw finite automata as quickly with either code or some drawing program.

      The closest digital alternative I've found is Quill on a tablet, but paper's battery lasts longer.

    5. Re:C/C++/Java/Ruby/Python and I use.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us can remember when that was a reasonably accurate description...

      Pencil on 80-column coding sheets (cheaper to buy in bulk, I guess). Then, yes, transcribed by dedicated typists (onto punched cards). Put the card decks into a tray near the machine room and wait three hours for the printout to come back. With no more than a couple of turn-arounds a day, check the deck thoroughly for typos and stupid errors before submitting - so a *lot* less compile errors.

      No one ever offered me a stenographer, though.

  36. Compare plugins... by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 1

    It might be as simple as comparing plugins/scripts. Sublime Text seems to be the new hotness for web development, with lots of JavaScript, HTML and CSS project plugins (e.g. angular, node, emmet). VIM probably has more plugins for projects that use C++.

  37. Start a survey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I use nvi (not vim) and end up using the crappy busybox "vi" far too often, for, well, bourne shell+friends, C, C++, python, email, opinion pieces, and whatever else I end up writing. Including when I did a little ruby (and failing to like it). I'm not using any IDE, haven't since my DOS days (Q.EXE (qedit 3) worked much better than the borland turbo IDEs because it didn't hog all the memory!). Tried to use emacs once and immediately left it, retching. This was before picking up on vi, back when I used pico for a while in my early Unix days.

    I really don't mind what others are using so long as they don't bother me with it, so keep your explicit or implicit assumptions of superiority (emacs AND vim folks) to yourself please. Where you don't it can easily have negative effects. Like how any book on lisp more or less tells you to pick up emacs. I'm reading the book for the supposed superior programming language, not for the bundled IDE/OS/crappy editor/keyboard combo cult, thank you. And for what? nvi implements % to find the other side of the brace/paren/bracket, and that ought to be enough. Even so, I'm exhorted to pick their fave editor. So I skip lisps and pick something else. So sorry.

  38. Notepad++ by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I will just leave this here.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  39. Real programmers use echo by gameboyhippo · · Score: 0

    As a real programmer, I just echo punchcards into a file.

    1. Re:Real programmers use echo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $cat /dev/mic > a.out
      $./a.out
      N00b.

    2. Re:Real programmers use echo by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You didn't make a.out executable.

    3. Re:Real programmers use echo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have if he had umask 000 in his .profile, and his OS allowed the executable bit to be set on a new file.

    4. Re:Real programmers use echo by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that's true.

  40. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

    Linux "experts" love to hate on nano because you don't need a cheat sheet to just start using it

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  41. Console vs Visual Programs by mcolgin · · Score: 1

    I think it has to do with the target... For PHP and C; I use SemWare TSE aka Q.EXE from the old DOS days. It's a Win32 console mode editor that performs very well. However, anything that needs a "resource editor" aka "RAD Design"; I *have* to use an IDE, just to deal with the visual components of the program.

    --
    I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com
  42. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's always nano :)

    Text editor of the gods.

  43. Emacs and whatever language suits the job. by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Emacs is my editor of choice. As for language, I use whatever best suits the task at hand, most frequently: Perl, Ruby, Java, C, and JavaScript. And if I'm customizing emacs, I use lisp.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Emacs and whatever language suits the job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xjed sort of emacs without excess junk, fo python

  44. Vim, Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vim, Python

  45. nano vs pico flames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nano! How dare you mention nano. pico is WAY better.

  46. Sublime Text for Web Development by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 1

    Sublime has a pretty extensive plugin set for JavaScript, CSS and HTML, which includes support for various projects in those languages (e.g. angular, node, LESS, emmet, etc.). The multi-cursor stuff is a nice gimmick.

    1. Re:Sublime Text for Web Development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use SublimeText for Perl, Javascript (node), Python, and Ruby.

  47. Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use both Emacs with CPerl-mode and Eclipse with EPIC. I prefer Emacs if I'm writing a non-trivial shell script (a trivial shell script I will use vi/vim).
    I use Eclipse on Windows with ActiveState Perl. I try not to edit anything serious directly on my Linux webhost.

  48. Well, perl and vim yes, but not for that reason by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    I use VI and VIM as my editor because as a system administrator, VI was one of 2 editors that were guaranteed to be in Solaris should the system be in a real bad state and in recovery modes. I use perl because it is installed on everything out of the box (Solaris, Red Hat, SUSE, and IRIX all of which I deal with). Python isn't on all those OS's by default (Solaris in particular), which means it might not be on all the systems I deal with. I'm not about to go and write code that I can't run universally on the systems I deal with.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  49. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Linux not some retarded attenion whoring called "GNU/Linux".

  50. sublime editor by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    I use a modern fashion editors for most of my scripting (python/js ) / programming activities, which is Sublime editor these days, and Aptana sometimes for more heavy tasks. Old style editors just slows me down....I'm weird i know...:)

  51. main two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perl: joe

    1. Re:main two by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      C: jmacs

    2. Re:main two by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      Perl: joe

      Joe's Own Editor!

      I use JOE for teaching students how to write code. That way they can concentrate on learning the material and not how to make the editor work.

      --
      227-3517
  52. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Not in the default minimum install of Red Hat 6... (or is it?)

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  53. Lighttable by ShopMgr · · Score: 1

    Clojure = LightTable
    Java = Eclipse
    Emacs = good O/S, lousy editor. I use it for magit, XML and scratch pad. I keep a cheat sheet on my desktop.
    Vim = I use it automatically from the command-line to edit files. Also use it as part of a "find" to edit files down in the bowels of file system.

    Honorable mentions:
    Cursive - Remote debugging with NREPL is to menu intensive.
    IntelliJ with Cursive might become my choice for Clojure.

  54. VS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is decent. .Net as it is.

    Eclipse is not bad. Java as it is.

    I have not tried the new android studio. Java as it is.

    I long for the day of native code apps (vc6 days). Managed apps are such pigs, and as with all pigs, lipstick only matters if you are yourself a pig.

  55. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by geekboybt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is not. But there's only a neutered version of vim too, so either way you're installing something.

  56. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this 2002?

  57. I'm seriously an outlier. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The very last program I wrote was in Inform 6, and I used Kate. Honest to God!

  58. ED, ARexx by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    Where does that fit in your Analyze! spreadsheet?

    1. Re:ED, ARexx by rossdee · · Score: 1

      When I used to have an Amiga, I used UEdit
      I had to give them up when I came to this country 12 years ago :(
      The euthor, Rick Stiles, died of cancer and the program was released as freeware on fish disks (768-769)
      but I had been a registered user since 1988

  59. gVim, C++ by RailGunner · · Score: 1

    Anything else would be....

    .... uncivilized.

  60. Vim for: C, C++, Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vim for just about everything I code: C, C++, Python, shell scripts. Here's my story:

    As a kid I learned enough vim to not be stymied when needing to edit a file on a remote machine. hjkl, :wq, i, a, dd, yy, 0, $, etc. you know, the basics.

    Latest job we are using Qt and C++, everyone on Qt Creator. Qt Creator has a passable Vim mode, so I turned it on and made an effort to learn more Vim so I could be more productive while editing. Kind of hard to describe, but every so often I'd google search "vim ___" when I found myself doing something particularly repetitive and then add my knew knowledge to my toolbox.

    All together, Qt Creator is a decent IDE, it's simple enough that you can just start using it without being completely lost, it's cross platform, open, etc. Recently it's gotten a lot more buggy, but I digress...

    Ended up on a Python project, but Qt Creator's autocomplete for C++ plus Vim keybindings had spoiled me. Couldn't find an editor that would do python autocompletion with vim keybindings. Ended up configuring Vim with a bunch of packages to get it to do what I want. Took some effort but it was worth it.

    Now I use Vim for everything, it is missing some of the shortcuts that I used in Qt Creator (getting these to work or finding alternatives is just a matter of me spending the time to tell Vim what I want it to do, then assign a key). Vim has a bunch of peculiarities probably due to its heritage, such as not being able to map Control-/ to toggle comments or looking weird inside of tmux vs a regular terminal.

    But the precision I get in Vim is worth it.. it's not necessarily faster for me, but editing is a lot more precise and deliberate.

    Vim would probably be useless for programming (but great for editing conf files) without its diverse plugin system. I use one called Vundle.

    I'd like to expand my Vim/C++ skills, for stuff like:

    - rename a class member variable everywhere in header and implementation
    - sync up modifications between method signature in header and implementation (say you add an argument in the .cpp file, you want the corresponding line in the .h file to be modified to match, and vice versa, etc.)
    - add unimplemented methods in .h file to .cpp (I have something that does this, but my gripe with it is that if I put copy constructor and assignment operator under private in the .h with the intention of not implementing them, it will add them to .cpp file anyway)
    - rename a method everywhere in project ... that kind of stuff. Any good suggestions?

  61. Ruby? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience, the majority of Ruby "programmers" use a crayon and construction paper. If construction paper is not handy, then a nearby wall is usually substituted.

  62. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by naris · · Score: 1

    Because, back in the day on unix and xenix systems vi was often the only option other than ed and you got used to it...

  63. Language: any Editor: TextMate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nm

  64. I still love Joe by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Joe -is a great editor (he/it) all the features I typically need for small and medium sized software projects.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:I still love Joe by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      I snidely disparage your use of joe. I use jmacs! Much better*. B-)

      * In the sense that my fingers are not lost when I come across a system that only has emacs installed. Otherwise joe's great.

    2. Re:I still love Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe -is a great editor (he/it) all the features I typically need for small and medium sized software projects.

      And I thought I was the only one! I've written everything from assembly code (ARM & SPARC) to C/C++ to JavaScript and Java with it. I've never liked IDEs and have been using joe for almost 20 years It's fast, works well, and has the features I need and doesn't get in my way.

      I've worked on some pretty big projects (+1M LOC) and have never understood the whole "you need an IDE for large projects" stuff.

  65. Editor,Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notepad... "Like a sailor"

  66. Class Browser by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Every Smalltalk programmer programs in the class browser, and its good friend, the live debugger. So there's a definite link there. Except for the GNU Smalltalk people who are weird and program in Vim or Emacs.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  67. Just a question. Is there anyone out there younger than around 40 who uses VIM because of their own choice? By that I mean, they at first turned on a Unix/Linux box, investigated some editors and chose VIM. Nearly everyone I know who uses VIM uses it because someone else originally made them use it and they stuck with it. I know this sounds like flamebait, but seriously, its an honest question.
    It just seems like Emacs is a lot easier to learn because it one keystroke to get to a menu, and just another to get to a help system.

  68. vi/gVim, PL/SQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle DBA/developer. Love vi for whipping up huge scripts in a heartbeat. vi on my AIX, HP-UX, and Linux servers, gVim on my Windows PCs. SQL*Plus when I'm stuck with it, and Oracle SQL Developer or TOAD when I get any say in the matter, which seems to happen less and less frequently with each passing year.

  69. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? You're using some kind of BSD userland then I guess.

  70. Vim. by Noryungi · · Score: 1

    These days it's mostly vim, Python, shell, Perl.

    When I really have to do something ''serious'' in Python, I use the free version of PyCharm, with the vim plugin, of course.

    Otherwise, it's nothing but straight vim all day, every day. If not vim, thel elvis. if not elvis, then straight vi or nvi.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  71. Well, C# is a given by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Visual Studio when doing C# stuff. Eclipse when doing Java stuff. On Linux, vim or notepad++ when doing C stuff or any other random shell junk. On Windows, notepad++ (okay, let's be honest, it's usually just noteBut I always wind up missing Visual Studio. It seems to fit my workflows best, and if it worked well with Java I'd replace Eclipse with it in an instant.

  72. Uh, sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I'm seriously alone on this one, but on occasion I do vb.net in vi (slickedit)

  73. Emacs by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 2
    I use Emacs and

    1: C++, C, Objective-C
    2: LaTeX
    3: Python
    4: Bash
    5: Text files

    I used to use (also in Emacs):
    1: Java
    2: C#
    3: Fortran

    Emacs works for just about any language out there, I use variety of languages and a variety of different platforms, Emacs is the same on all of them and just works. 2:

    1. Re:Emacs by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Emacs is a great operating system. It just needs a good text editor.

  74. Joe by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    Joe. For Python, C++, bash, and in days of wretched drudgery for which Larry Wall will surely answer for one day, Perl.

    Ever since the days of Slackware CDs and the Linux 0.98 kernel, I have happily used joe, a Wordstar-like editor with features and size comparable to vim. It's carried me through maintaining 80,000 line C++ codebases and I do my Python work in it quite happily. There are plenty of macro and regex capabilities, block text marking, everything I need without the weight of an IDE.

    There hasn't been a single vi or emacs proponent that could do anything in their editor of choice that I couldn't do, and probably quicker. It goes like this: "But it's installed by default on Solaris!" I get my editor with a quick compile, and I know enough vi and nano to get there. It's super fast to install it on any modern Linux distro. "But it'll work when the terminal settings break!" Not a reason to select an editor for heavy coding. "But you have to make sure you have got properly formatted EOL characters and manage your spaces!" I do it just as well as they do; we're not talking about Windows Notepad here. "But more people use it!" Pike off, imaginary objectors.

    If it works and meets spec, you use the tools you get the best results in.

    1. Re:Joe by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      Here's another good reason to use joe (jmacs for me).

      $ ls -lF --si /usr/bin/emacs23-nox /usr/bin/joe
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11M Sep 8 2012 /usr/bin/emacs23-nox*
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 462k Oct 6 2011 /usr/bin/joe*

    2. Re:Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jstar is the flavor of joe that really rocks. ;-D

    3. Re:Joe by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Or a reason to use a modified version of the old NED editor from rand. My homebrew version is 176K, and is more efficient at large files than vi. I built it after needing it for linux and giving up trying to update the original code about 5 years ago. Up until then I used the Rand code. The other handy thing about having your own editor is you can make it work exactly like you want. And since I've used it since college, it is like the back of my hand. I use it for everything from scripts to million line C projects.

    4. Re:Joe by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The Linux 0.98 kernel far predates Slackware CD's. Slackware started out on big stacks of floppy diskettes, and came into it's prime after 1.0. Slackware on CDs came into it's prime at about 1.2.13. The only CD distribution I know of with a 0.9x kernel is the first generation Yggdrasil CD, which was called LGX (Linux Gnu X, which they apparently thought was the acronym that would start.) The LGX CD was the first plug-and-play Linux version of all, and was sorta dazzling in 1993. (it played a voice welcome message at login on your sound blaster)

  75. Perl -Joe/Kate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been coding perl for 14 years, and I usually use joe or kate as my editor of choice.
    joe has wordstar type key-stroke commands.

  76. Sublime Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nicely cross platform, and works the same everywhere.

    I use VIM for bits and pieces but anything involved becomes SublimeText on Linux/Windows/OSX.

  77. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    Syntax highlighting? Does that even work in the terminal version?

    Yes, it works on the terminal. Autocompletion, and real time compiling also do.

  78. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Emacs does so much more than vi, and so much more than syntax highlighting. Though vim has been catching up (I think some people think vi and vim are the same thing) it still isn't quite up to what emacs does and I found it more difficult to customize (I turn off it's default syntax hilighting for creating an unreadable mess). Real vi doesn't support multiple view windows (though vim does), and definitely not multiple frames (separately placeable windows). Emacs has support for a huge number of languages, it had "plugins" before that concept was popularized, you can check code in and out, edit files on ftp servers, use it as a web browser, read man pages and info docs within the editor (vastly more convenient than using the command line), search and replace using regular expressions, easy to customize your own language style, integrates with compiler and debugger, has a class browser, you can play Zork on it, and the same basic keystrokes work for editing your comments in slashdot.

    Yes, it seems like it does a lot, but it's a platform and not an editor. So why do people complain that emacs is big while not complaining that web browsers are getting too large and bulky for the display of static documents? Emacs really is not big anymore, maybe it was back when we had 2MB workstations, but compare it to the bulky modern apps that do far less like Word (seriously, some people use word as a program editor!). The memory hogs and performance killers I see today on my work computer are Outlook and Firefox.

    But even if Emacs were reduced to being just an editor and doing only editing and related operations, I'd prefer it over other choices. I do use vi, but as the quick-and-dirty editor or when I'm on someone else's computer. Yes there are some things I wish Emacs did (or at least did without my writing a package for it) but there is so much muscle memory and experience with it that everything else is incredibly slow and clumsy in comparison.

  79. Depends on the era for me. by SocialEngineer · · Score: 1

    When I was doing BASH/C/C++/small-time x86 Assembly (high school/college), it was usually in VIM (for the *nix platform). Nowadays I'm a Windows user (just because software I need runs so much better on it), and utilize a combination of Notepad and Geany (nice little multiplatform editor), doing HTML/CSS/PHP. At the office I use Dreamweaver because, well.. the company paid for it, and it does the job :)

    --
    "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
    1. Re:Depends on the era for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we're talking about the olden days...
        The first "editor" I used to program was PC-Write, to write assembly language programs that I assembled with CHASM. (Yay DOS shareware!)

  80. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Why would you run any editor but GNU Emacs on a GNU/Linux system? Vi is not GNU.

    Have you tried gvim?

    (ducks before he gets yelled at for making people launch that abomination in X)

  81. If you use Windows: Scite by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I discovered Scite and I'm impressed with what it does. It is open source and you can write C/C++

    I'm sure IDE/Debugger combos can be superior, but not always.

  82. If the editor really matters by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the editor really matters, you're not much of a programmer. Text is text -- any editor should do.

    Don't confuse relying on IDE crutches with being an editor.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree to an extent, but you're not much of a programmer if you haven't optimized your workflow. Depends on the size of the project whether that is worth optimizing.

      With stress that "optimize" can also mean "simplify" and the lack of bells and whistles can be a feature.

      However, that can also mean setting up and configuring your editor or IDE or whatever the case may be for the task at hand.

      Sure, I can jump into notepad and do everything there. But any sane vim user will hate the experience, their productivity will suffer, and they will install vim the minute they can.

      I would agree, but with the rephrasing: If the editor doesn't matter, you're not much of a programmer.

      It means the same thing.

      The editor is a program. To say it is not is intellectually dishonest. You can argue to what degree, and to what degree it is your job to tweak things.

      Give me choice of editor or give me death. I sentence you to a lifetime of notepad.

      If you are implying a good programmer can program their way out of a paper bag, that is fine.

      But I have work to do, I don't have time to fight my way out of shit that has already been solved, whether by myself or someone else.

      If you want to be the expert paper bag escape artist, kudos, but what made Houdini great was that not everyone had the same career.

      My universe simply does not need 100,000 Houdinis . 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000 is not a bad thing, no.

      I am not implying you are wrong, just can't imagine what strange universe you live in?

      Do you enjoy whips and chains and gimp masks and melting wax all over yourself too? To each their own.

    2. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will take a nice, cute, healthy vi calmly sitting by, doing nothing, and just be friends with her. That's not ideal but it's not bad, there is much worse out there.

      Sure it sucks.

      It is better than letting notepad piss on your head and shit all over you every night.

      You may say "but its still love! don't you believe in love? you have to make the relationship work!" but I will just shake my head and walk away.

      I am glad you love notepad, she is a really fucked up individual, thank you for taking the 30" dildo up your ass for the rest of us.

      Truly, we are grateful, that you keep her occupied.

      We are grateful that "love" is all the same to you, because you are a "good" lover and not a "bad" lover like the rest of us.

      Truly, you love her for who she is without having to change her, you are a better person than us heathens who don't like being shit on and urinated on.

      Thank you, dearly.

      We will shake our heads and wonder "why do you put up with that shit?" but to each their own.

    3. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse relying on editor crutches with being an IDE.

      FTFY.

    4. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who, for the most part of his education, used basic text editors to program I couldn't disagree more. With a proper IDE I can concentrate on programming and not memorizing every API-function's parameter order or having to start a compile every fucking time I fix a syntax error only to see that something else breaks.

    5. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also drive 10 miles to work instead of walk, does that make me not much of a programmer as well? Efficiency is the name of the game in high dollar coding. If you refuse to accept that, you're living in the past (like the 1980s past).

    6. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "really matters," "if?"

      the text editor is *very* much a part of the work. like the keyboard. like the font, like the color scheme.

      the thought that none of those matter distances a dilettante from the professional. or at least a programmer that pokes around vs. one that builds.

      that said: i don't think it's as much the editor as the key-bindings for editing tasks.

    7. Re:If the editor really matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. By analogy, you are not much of a microchip designer if you cannot design a chip with a pencil and paper. Who needs CAD crutches?

    8. Re:If the editor really matters by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1
      I used to agree with you, and then came Java, and I got tired of writing a bunch of crap by hand just to prove I could.

      Use the right tool for the job. You _can_ build that house with just a hammer, but, there are nice tools that save you a lot of time for specific jobs.

  83. KEDIT and Rexx by Wargames · · Score: 1

    I use Kedit www.kedit.com for everything text based. In my hands, it is the best... a veritable Swiss Army knife. I mostly code in text based languages ABAP, C, C#, Python, Javascript, Java, Natural, and COBOL. My favorite all-time language is Rexx which it's varient Kexx is the macro language for Kedit.

    --
    -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
  84. Sublime with Ruby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm using Sublime text for my Ruby (on Rails) work. And also some mainly Javascript / Coffeescript work, and a tiny bit of Python. I'd use Sublime on pretty much everything if I could.

  85. Perl on Emacs by nick_urbanik · · Score: 1

    Randal L. Schwartz (Floss Weekly, Schwarzian transform) would be proud of me.

  86. PHP, gedit by vasilevich · · Score: 0

    I am a PHP/jquery/CSS programmer. I use gedit. I used to be a Systems Administrator, during those days I used vi.

  87. Ada/GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Ada with GPS but in a pinch or when I want to poke around quickly, vi.

  88. Fortran and vim by TheMatt · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's everything and vim, but I usually code in Fortran. After that, bash, Python, a bit of Perl and C.

    --

    Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!

    1. Re:Fortran and vim by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's everything and vim, but I usually code in Fortran

      Ah, so you're the other Fortran programmer on here. I've often thought I should learn a proper IDE because I'm working with code that needs serious reworking and something to automate the process would help. Emacs is fine for most things though.

      Perhaps I should be thankful I'm not using a card punch...

  89. Vim for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I try my best to try out other editors and IDE's but I tend to be de-facto vim - no matter what language: C, C++, Obj-C, Perl, Bash, Python, Ruby, PHP, Lisps, Javascript, Java, .. It's just the most no-nonsense way of looking at code.

  90. Really Old School by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    copy con

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  91. Programmers Notepad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use programmers notepad on windows for most of my work. Mostly php with a bit of js, html and css. I like it because its basic and doesnt get in my way. If I have to do some quick live editing on our linux servers, I use vim.

  92. varies by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

    Like some others who have posted here, my choice of editor and language have varied with time.

    • In 1964 I coded in PDP-1 assembly language and my editor was TVedit.
    • In the early 1970s I used PDP-6 assembly language and Stopgap.
    • In the late 1970s I used Bliss-36 and SOS.
    • In the 1980s I used Bliss-32 and EDT.
    • In the 1990s and early 2000s I used DCL and EDT.
    • In the late 2000s and early 2010s I used Perl and Vim.
    • Today I use Python and EMACS.

    1. Re:varies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one did you use for editing hieroglyphics?

    2. Re:varies by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      What, no TECO?

      TECO does not really have syntax

      I have a worn copy of the BLISS-36 manual somewhere. I only used once or twice to try it out.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:varies by John_Sauter · · Score: 2

      Actually, I did use TECO on the PDP-6 until Stopgap was ready. I also coded in assembly language for the PDP-6/10, and in Gogol for the PDP-1. I used Bliss-36 to write a PDP-11 task builder that ran on the PDP-10, so a customer wouldn't have to take his KL10 down to run the PDP-11 TKB on the PDP-11 front end in order to build the DECnet code.

  93. Change by MyDirtIsRed · · Score: 0

    What percentage of people start out using Emacs and move to vim, or vice versa?

  94. Horses for courses. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    Eclipse :

    * Java
    * XSLT
    * XML (mostly Maven POM files)

    I use the Vrapper plugin for Vim key binding. It's not perfect, alas.

    Komodo Edit:

    * Python
    * Ruby
    * HTML
    * Text
    * XML

    In particular, it's "Fast Open" option is really useful for large folder trees full of many files that you know the names of.

    And it has a Vim keybinding, which isn't perfect, alas.

    Notepad2 :

    For a general fast-open general Notepad replacement on Windows.

    Vim :

    Vim is of course, awesome. I'll be quite pleased if the Neovim project actually succeeds and makes it into a library, and other editors can integrate it properly.

    Vim gets used for most of the text files I edit at one time or another, particularly in concert with shell operations like find and grep.

  95. Bash on nano by thieh · · Score: 1

    I don't usually code except on bash (and possibly my ever increasing proxy auto config), and I prefer nano (I got used to dos before switching to linux) over most editors that needs xorg for easier sudo when needed.

  96. One editor to rule them all.... by davidk42 · · Score: 1

    vim; ruby

  97. Teco, Ed, cat, vi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything else is for noobs or people who program with training wheels.

  98. Mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netbeans for C++ or Java.
    Eclipse for Android (just because the tool support is better, I still hate the editor itself)
    Scitool's Understand for Ada (but only because the Ada project I inherited is a horrible mess that is impossible to untangle without tools to help).

  99. I need ten different languages every day ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would say that the use of Emacs/Vim increases with the number of programming language used. IMHO, after some with time, programmers use often 9 or 10 languages at least:
    1. a shell (bash et al, Powershell)
    2. a scripting language (perl, python, ruby in alphabetical order :-), basic )
    3. a compiling language (Makefile, Autoconf, Cmake)
    4. a no-oo programming language (C, Assembly, Pascal, Ada )
    5. an oo programming language (C++, java, Objective-C, D, Go, Scala, C#)
    6. a report language (latex, docbook)
    7. a web language (html, svg)
    8. a dynamic web language (javascript)
    9. data analysis language (R, gnuplot)
    10. Misc (sed, org-mode, vim scripting, elisp, ...)

    One language dominate: use the "right" editor for it, then use emacs/vim for the others.

  100. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I learned to use vi on SCO Unix / Xenix and I still use it every day even now !

    I never touched ed.

  101. Perl programmer, using Emacs by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

    I use Emacs, mostly. For editing files as root or over SSH I often use vi(m). I still want to switch to vim for all my editing for a few months, just to see if I can get used to it. Don't think I will convert to vim, but I think the only way to get used to an editor (and have non-biased opinion about it) is to use it for a few months (and RTFM, of course). On Windows, several years back, I used TextPad mostly.

  102. Brainfuck and ED by captjc · · Score: 1

    Brainfuck and ED because I am a masochist.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  103. Java. Android. Eclipse. by X10 · · Score: 1

    Nothing else.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:Java. Android. Eclipse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You poor little man. Android studio is free.

  104. Mine is by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

    Editor: EDLIN
    Language: LOGO

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  105. Copy Con by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Copy Con > myjob.bat. Editing is for wimps.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:Copy Con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with windows is it is too verbose

      cat >myjob.bat

      There. Fixed that for you

  106. PhpStorm + PHP by AcerbusNoir · · Score: 1

    And ViM (with my 20+ plugins - thank you vundle) when I'm using a terminal

  107. Emacs for C & assembly by hedley · · Score: 1

    C and ARM assembly. Same .el files from circa 1985 or so still work (with (dot) replaced by (point))

    Started with Emacs on the Decsystem-20 in 1980.

  108. Emacs for ... by rstanley · · Score: 1

    C, C++, Perl, Bash, HTML, basic text files, whatever...

    NO vi!

    Flame me if you wll! ;^)

  109. vi forever by ddt · · Score: 1

    I use vi for everything, currently c#, shader code, and my work log. If this fucking Internet thing weren't all about these God damned pictures and videos and programs it wants me download to my stupid fucking bloated browser, and I could instead glean the knowledge of the internet in nicely formatted text and download and view all the rest of that bloat at my leisure, I'd be a lot happier with that. I'd like vi to be my input window for this post. I find this whole affair uncomfortably removed from the command line.

  110. Vim for everything by maharvey · · Score: 1

    I use vim in a console window for everything: these days mainly scripts, Java, Python, C

    The one exception recently is Android. But I'm working out a command-line based dev environment for android that lets me use Vim too.

  111. Eclipse/C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On projects that aren't meant to be distributed (as code or otherwise) I can concentrate on coding, not having to maintain builds on the side. Also Eclipse makes refactoring, finding uses/declarations etc. a breeze so I do it a lot more; don't like the name of any variable/function? Alt+Shift+R and change it, takes 2 seconds and you didn't have to stop to think about anything else.

    Those are the main reasons why I don't understand people who don't use an IDE; to find out what a function does I could waste time flipping through tabs of open files and finding actual include-files from the system, or I can just hover the mouse cursor over a function-call and see either a commented declaration or better yet the actual implementation.

  112. PyCharm by rjkimble · · Score: 2

    I mostly do Python, and for that I've moved almost exclusively to JetBrains' PyCharm IDE.

    --

    Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
    But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
  113. Ed is the standard text editor by russotto · · Score: 1

    You're all wrong. You should use ed. Ed is the standard text editor.

  114. Kind of a BS question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use vim for virtually everything text-editing related, and that just happens to include programming. I use to write software in PHP, Perl, HTML, Javascript, C/C++, Rust, Ruby... whichever language I have to do my work in at the time.

    I don't think this is something specific to languages. It's down to what editor is a better fit for your mental approaches. Some people just get stuck in one editor without ever seeing if there's a bit fit out there, but usually do so once they've found one that's flexible enough to get the job done even if there's something slightly better for one of the many tasks their choice can handle - like vim/emacs.

  115. Vim, C++, Java, Shell by time_lords_almanac · · Score: 1

    Vim and ctags make the perfect IDE for me. I mostly do C++, Java and various shell languages.

  116. ISPF Edit by hudsucker · · Score: 1

    with a lot of custom macros.

  117. It's different for everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Text editor of choice: Horses
    Programming language: Courses

  118. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    On NetBSD, the base install includes vi (the real thing, not some workalike) and it's refreshing and clean to roll out the base install and then go in and touch up /etc/rc.d with vi. And have a fully working system when you're done, with X11, the Tab Window Manager, all the goodies you need.

  119. Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perl/PHP. MCEDIT,NANO depending which is available on the Linux/BSD system
    For JavaScript and html on windows I use notepad++,no perl/php devel windows.

    Generally, I use eclipse/xcode/visual studio for c++

  120. Don't forget the core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i do all my coding in notepad.exe. not because of features, but to celebrate _my_ memory, and to let my logic flow unhindered by the bj-iness of emacs or eclipse, mye idea is that ideally the editor is just an interface to the cpu, an one that i ideally can be without

  121. Why not a poll? by barakn · · Score: 1

    This could be the start of a whole new type of /. poll - 3D. Language in x axis, editor in y, number of people choosing particular xy combinations as z axis.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  122. "Are most Perl programmers using vim?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, soulskill uses AOL.

  123. C and vi by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    C and vi, what else?

    And by vi, I mean nvi, not vim

  124. Bastard languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some languages Make, Python make whitespace differences part of the program text. Those are programs from hell, without a language aware editor you really are SOL.

    And another vote for ED :)

  125. C, vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C, vi

  126. eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eclipse for cfml, js, html, css, sql

  127. Mostly vim by tuxicle · · Score: 1

    Mostly vim, and I have to write C, perl, shell scripts and VHDL. Sometimes use Eclipse while working on projects with ARM7 embedded CPUs, but I find myself missing vim.

  128. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by loufoque · · Score: 1

    I never understood why a couple of GNU command line tools made it worth calling the OS GNU/Linux.
    If anything it's the Desktop Environment that should matter.

  129. You Insensitive Clod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I use punched cards and COBOL.

  130. Sublime Text :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Python/C++ and Sublime Text

  131. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    So why do people complain that emacs is big while not complaining that web browsers are getting too large and bulky for the display of static documents?

    People do complain about web browsers getting too big, and about them being used for dynamic content, too. Nobody listens. People complain about EMACS giving them carpal. People listen to that. (No really, one of my old bosses had one of those expensive Kinesis keyboards way back in the day, before carpal was fashionable, and blamed it on EMACS.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  132. Re:Uh, sure.. Boss Here, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're FIRED

  133. Emacs for functional, Vim for scripting/dynamic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emacs has some nice features for Lisps and strongly-typed functional languages. SLIME for Lisps, and Proof General for strongly-typed languages.

    Vim is used a lot for bash scripting, as well as Ruby/Python. There are a few plugins floating around to get IDE-like functionality (jump to declaration, autocomplete, etc) in Vim for those languages. But for Ruby/Python, you might as well get IntelliJ if you are serious about using them.

  134. perl/C++ w/BBEdit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's how I roll.

  135. Depends on the language and the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For C/C++: Visual Studio on Windows, Emacs on Linux.
    When I start implement things I prefer Visual Studio mainly because of native auto-complete support and navigation tools (go to declaration, ...).
    When I debug things I prefer Emacs. The interface is less practical than Visual Studio Debugger but the default GDB integration offers similar features and you can find custom Valgrind integration. And there are the psychanalyst and the ASCII-art drawing modes to keep yourself busy when the code is compiling.

    For Java: Eclipse but I do not have much of a choice here since I mainly develop RCP applications. I use it for android apps too though.

  136. Rails ecosystem, Vim user by johncalvinyoung · · Score: 1

    I work for a small-to-medium-sized Rails shop (~12 developers capable in Rails, although many are full-stack, including myself) and many/most of us use Vim on a daily basis (should be noted, with heavy extension use). Those that don't mostly use Sublime Text, and our single emacs user is in the process of transitioning to Vim. Even one of our Objective-C colleagues managed to get Vim running hosted in Xcode somehow as an experiment. The support in the Vim community for Ruby and Rails-ecosystem languages and patterns (Coffeescript, Sass, Slim, Haml, and the like) is fairly good, and there's a number of IDE-ish features available as extensions. I've been pretty satisfied with it since moving to the Rails community, although I'll admit my background wasn't heavily into IDEs at all, and the only full Ruby-focused IDE I've seen, Rubymine, seemed intolerably slow and unusable.

  137. vi & C, or vim & C, or vim & PHP (when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see above...

  138. MUF & LUA by Barny · · Score: 1

    For MUF (an online-game variant of forth) I use notepad++ because there is no IDE that supports it and frequently, while working within this language I am also supporting JS, SQL, HTML and needing something to parse JSON.

    As for LUA, again, notepad++ because it is there and just works.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  139. VIM by j127 · · Score: 3

    I picked up Vim on my own while in my early 30s, because I was curious. I had already used Emacs for months, and have tried many other editors for months or years at a time. Vim has a steep learning curve, but it ended up being mind-blowing. It's like connecting your brain directly to the computer. Once you have the muscle memory, you just think something and it happens with a few keystrokes. An experienced Vim user who is serious about learning the editor is probably faster than an experienced Emacs user. I'm not putting down Emacs, since I'm experimenting with a switch to Emacs/Evil, but modal editing is faster from what I've seen. For help in Vim while in the terminal, just type: ESC :h Or just press F1 in Gvim. You can get to Gvim from Vim by typing: :gui

  140. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    Well, the G in GNOME stands for GNU and it is part of the GNU Projects.

  141. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by loufoque · · Score: 1

    And GNOME isn't the only DE on what people call GNU/Linux.

  142. Visual Studio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anybody noticed the fact that, despite being the rule on /. years ago, VS is now an accepted solution?

  143. Emacs, Vim by ianezz · · Score: 1

    GNU Emacs for every programming language but Java (C, C++, SQL, Tcl, Python, Perl, Javascript, shell scripting), XML, HTML and CSS. Because it's the same on all platforms and ELisp comes to the rescue when I need it. Vim for configuration files (because vi is everywhere and it's the same on all platforms). Eclipse for Java code, because it does the job and because of the plugins that sometimes are required (but for large edits, I use GNU Emacs as an external editor - because it's faster). After 20+ years in the field, I have to have a really good reason to try other editors. These fill all my needs.

  144. Gvim, mostly C++ and Python. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Normal' IDEs feel completely unusable now. Like typing through molasses.

  145. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder when the GNU folks will make their own version of X, maybe GNU/Y.
    Probably sometime after the standalone HURD release.

  146. Perl and vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vim is OTT. gotta love white text on a black screen.

  147. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNU's contributions to Linux are a couple of command-line tools? Okay.

  148. VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    23 years old and using vim/nvi, because it is awesomely efficient for code editing.

  149. Ruby / AngularJS / Java / Objective-C (iOS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use:
    * atom (https://atom.io/) for Ruby and AngularJS
    * STS (or just standard eclipse) for Java
    * XCode for Objective-C (duh)
    * vim for random shell scripts, sometimes I use atom for shell scripts.

  150. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by gdshaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never understood why a couple of GNU command line tools made it worth calling the OS GNU/Linux.

    I'm told that they contributed a few libraries too, but with cryptic names like glibc they surely can't be that important.

  151. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by loufoque · · Score: 0

    Right. An implementation of the standard C library is what makes an OS now.

  152. Seen so many IDEs come and go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen so many IDEs come and go over the years (including big revamps that are essentially new IDEs) that I refuse to commit to any IDE for any reason. I've used Emacs since 1991 and have muscle memory of how to use it. It's not going to change. I can do anything in Emacs that an IDE can do, and Emacs will be around when the IDE du jour is long gone.

    The funny part is: People talk about how IDEs are quicker for modern programming, but everyone I've ever worked with has talked about how fast I get code written. They're always surprised. They have no idea what tools I use.

  153. VIM by ktzar · · Score: 1

    I started using it 5 years ago because I liked the ideas behind it and took the plunge and used it exclusively for a week. From there, I was faster with it than with regular editors, and I stuck with it ever since. I'm 30 now.

  154. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Binutils, coreutils, autotools, bash, bison, findutils, diffutils, gcc, gawk, grep, groff, gmp, gzip, glibc, gettext, grub, m4, make, ncurses, sed, patch, tar, texinfo, to name a few... and yes, these are part of what makes an OS.

  155. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Bugamn · · Score: 1

    Last time I used it came with the cheat sheet in the menu.

  156. vim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use vim for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (front and back end).
    I use Eclipse and vim for Java

  157. My list by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1
    • * vim as the default always-available editor, for anything. gVim in some cases. Backed by cscope.
    • * jEdit if I have it installed, for anything. Backed by cscope.
    • * Notepad++ on Windows, if I have any kind of problem with vim or jEdit. (rare, but possible)
    • * Eclipse, for Java or php projects.
    1. Re:My list by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      So, I guess I only have a correlation for Java and php.

  158. Origin of code is also important by sarysa · · Score: 1

    I'll use Eclipse for original, vanilla Java code. (not variants like Android's Dalvik) But I tend to prefer TextPad for most things. If I'm working on someone else's Java code, I'll tend to use TextPad as well (will often have both Eclipse and TextPad pointing to the same Java project) because I like its search feature. It does what I want it to and I've gotten really efficient with it. (which is really what builds one's loyalty to a program)

    --
    Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  159. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by loufoque · · Score: 1

    All of which are pretty insignificant and have better alternatives anyway.
    "grep" isn't really what makes an operating system.

    Arguably a compiler is pretty important, but it is not tightly coupled with the OS at all, and clang is gaining weight.

  160. EMACS? Vi? IDE? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    What century are we in again?

  161. C# and VS are obviously linked by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

    I have used both VS and Intellij and quite frankly Intellij is much better. With VS you have to buy, download and install plugins to get the same sort of functionality as Intellij.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  162. Him and Vaskell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vim and Haskell.
    or
    Vim and C.

  163. Brief -> EMACS, vi -> VIM by Retired+Spy · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no-one mentioned Brief . Back in the day we had to churn out assembler which was fit for V&V. We only had beige box PCs and built and tested on a separate dedicated machine. The only thing that made it bearable was the speed and flexibility of Brief. It gave us the ability to easily format source code for the V&V tools (via automation) and served as a primitive source code browser. A couple of the guys used vi clones but I grew rather fond of Brief. It got out of the way, let me work on multiple files at once, and yet no matter how complex the edit job it made it easier. I remember it had a stellar macro facility for the time. When I switched to Sun Workstations I switched from Brief to EMACs because it provided the same programmable functionality. It didn't hurt that Brief had employed the basic EMACs command key setup. So for assembly language, (at least umpteen years ago,) I nominate Brief.

  164. well you know what they say by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    When your only tool is edlin, then everything looks like a batch file.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  165. Go / Sublime Text 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..

  166. VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a PhD student at a computer security research lab, and almost everyone in our lab uses vim, and loves it. I think most use it by choice; I sure do. Emacs might be easier to learn, but a lot of things that are easier to learn aren't better.

  167. VIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I should mention that almost everyone in our lab is under 30 :-)

  168. I use butterflies! by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    I used to use magnetized needles to change the bits on the drive directly. Then I decided that using butterflies was a much more elegant solution.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  169. preferred editor lang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vi and C are my favorites.

    I like Cygnus Ed on the Amiga too.

  170. VIM for C++, C, Perl and Assembly by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    Well, VIM and a bunch of XTerms.

  171. Re: vi, Emacs or IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah, EMACS is a bloated festering carcass full of millions of things you don't need.

    We don't want a platform, we want an editor.

    Funniest thing I've ever seen is an EMACS user on a client site where they were stuck at the console of a Solaris machine and not allowed to install EMACS.

    The whining and sniveling just makes you want to smack them.

    Most EMACS users are so dependent on their 'editor' that they can't do anything without it.

    EMACS is simply a terrible platform which promotes a bunch of lazy, whiny bitches who can't do anything without an electric mode for it.