Well, there's a boatload of open-source IDEs that I could direct this question to, but moreover, wouldn't it be in their best interest to make it very easy to integrate their tool with any other editor? Surely it wouldn't create a problem, license-wise, to have their tool integrate with any binary version of vim or emacs, right? I would actually consider an IDE that did that, and I think a lot of other people would, too.
Then, their product competes on it's merits of integrating the development process, and not on it's half-assed reimplementation of the same things that have been around for years for free in better editors.
Of course, one could argue, I guess, that this has already happened, and it's called UNIX.
The point is, why don't they use those editors as their basis for their integrated editor? Why re-invent the wheel so many times? Clearly, people won't use an IDE because of the superior text/code editing abilities; vim and emacs beat them all hands down. I understand they may not want to release their product as open-source and that may be a factor, but I guess it's a larger issue. Look at freshmeat and see how many IDEs there are, and how many "programmer's editors" there are. Seems like an awful waste of time and talent.
How many times in the history of mankind must syntax highlighting and folding be implemented in a code editor? Why can't all these IDE makers just use Vim (or even Emacs, or how about either?) as their code editor? I mean, emacs and vim are about a zillion times more powerful and feature-packed than any crappy IDE editor. What's the deal? It doesn't seem hard to just have the IDE contain a curses or terminal emulation layer where you can run a real editor, instead of these crappy knock-offs. It also would seem to be MUCH easier to do that rewriting an editor from scratch, yet again. Ugh.
Ant is a weak scripting language, with a retarded syntax, and no useful looping or conditional ability. It is the poorest build system I've ever seen, outside of "build.bat". I'm really excited for AAP, and hope it takes off and becomes usable. I personally never had a problem with make, but it's not cross-platform (because it depends on the various UNIX utilities), and ant is just so pathetically bad, and shows no signs of improving.
Unions do not do anyone any good except those who will not work hard and achieve. Without a union, you are still free to demand higher wages and better conditions and quit if you don't like it. A Union constricts the employers and employees and allows slugs to subsist on the achievement of others. If you want job security, go work for the government. Tech jobs are probably among the best, most well-paid and have the most favorable environments, and saying that you need a union to improve upon that is just crap.
Yeah, I did that when I first finished the game in hopes of getting a game programming job. That was about the time the economy went in the shitter, so I stayed with my posh web programmer gig:)
the clone I did for PC, including the DOT and including two new levels (which feature extra items and an extra dragon). Source is available. Only for Windows 95, 98, and 2k tho:( (possibly XP)
That's what's cool about DTS audio, they are just DVDs without any video. Not sure why they don't do this with Dolby Digital, as it is more widely supported by hardware.
Maybe I should check it out again, but the WindowMaker dock was always really hard to use. It was hard to get applications into it that weren't there, and hard to customize. It has been a while for me, though.
That is true. OS X solves this by showing icons for running apps AND apps you've chosen to be in the Dock. When an app is running, you can right-click and say "Keep in Dock", meaning to keep the icon there for quick reference later. I guess the idea is that you will not have very many applications running at once that you cannot fit all their icons along the bottom, and that you will have much fewer "quick-launch" icons than you would total applications in your system, so the number would be manageable. For apps you rarely run, you wouldn't have a quick-launch icon for it.
I dunno, I find myself accidentally running apps twice on Windows and Linux, because I go to click on the app's icon in all cases.
Overall though its not a bad choice. The lack of a window manager is a big win for newbs. Instead there is a task bar and you swap back and forth between tasks. If the task isn't running it starts it up automatically. This is a good idea. I wonder when the condesending bone heads working on windowmaker will figure this out.:P
This is a really important point, and this is the behavior of the oft-maligned OS X Dock. You see application icons in the Dock. You click them to use the application. If the application isn't running, it starts. It almost totally abstracts the user from the concept of which applications are running (much like a Palm interace). I would love to have this on Linux. Seperating out launchers from running tasks just makes no sense to me. You can see the major desktops starting to realize this. Both Windows and Gnome (maybe KDE?) are going towards rolling windows from the same task into the same taskbar entry. Now, if we can just make those entries the launchers (like it sounds like OEOne and OS X do), that would be great!
Emacs and VI are quite powerful, both offer a rich variety of features. However, while they are suitable for IDE's they are not really ideal in this area without a lot of customization, tinkering, knoweldge of eLisp, and time.
IDEs require lots of configuration as well. No project works exactly as the IDE vendor tells you. IDEs also lock you into working the way the vendor wants you to work. The fact that they are integrated may save you some setup time, but you are going to be less productive, especially the second you hit something that your IDE decided not to allow you to do.
Time isn't cheap. Time is expensive and precious. It's the one resource you or I can't replenish. I'd rather use an expensive IDE that saves me time rather than a potentially better editor that requires weeks to learn (yes, I already know them both quite well, but that's because I've used them for about 4 years now).
You spend most of your time coding typing in an editor. Your productivity is increased if you have an editor that lets you work the way you want to. It's a fallacy that an IDE automatically increases productivity. Every project I've seen them used on cause decreases in productivity.
Interoperability isn't really an excuse. Source is saved as ascii text. The only area you could possibly have trouble is line breaks. They're all interoperable.
What I mean is that the editor can interoperate with any other external program. Using make? vi and emacs will work. Using ant? they work. Using proprietary scripts because your project requires it and there's no other choice? vi and emacs work.
In terms of your percieved waste of time in setting up the editors, it's something you do once in your life for the vast majority of configuration needed. Setting it up for project-specific is not very time-consuming, and quite simple once you know the tool.
In a real dev environment, time saving dev tools such as an IDE are essential.
Not in my experience. And, anyway, an engineer that knows either VI or emacs really well can hit the ground running in almost any situation, which all the slaves to IDE-of-the-month are struggling to find out why hitting F5 doesn't compile their code. The arguments for open source and open standards in software apply to development tools. You are doing yourself a favor by using open, standard, easily understand and easily/widely available developer tools. When I bought a Mac, and wanted to do Java development on it, I had to just copy my.vimrc over to my home directory and I was ready to go. This guy is still looking for some JBuilder alternative, when he could be getting the job done.
Vim has all the features of any IDE: you can compile code and jump to the errors, you can get help from within the file, you can get syntax highlighting, you can get code completion, you can browse directories from within the editor, and the editor is far, far, far more powerful and configurable than any editor in any IDE. Plus, it works with ANY language and you do not have to wait for the vendor to allow you to do something or work with something, since it's almost infinitly configurable (and the source is available), you can do whatever you want. It presents absolutely no barriers to your development, other than your deisre to learn the tool and to use it. If you really like clicking buttons and menus, it has a GUI mode available on all platforms (except DOS:) that allows full customization of any menus.
I justify it by pointing you to the vim website and accompanying documentation. Note that vim != vi.
The same can all be said about emacs, though I don't use emacs, so I can't say for sure.
Learn vim or emacs. Preferrably vim. Knowing a powerful open-source text editor available on all platforms will be way more valuable than any special-sauce JBuilder or equivalent.
emacs has been around for years and years and is very robust and powerful.
vim (based on vi, which has been around for years and years) has been around for a really long time and is extremely powerful.
Both are far more powerful development environments than ANY IDE or any editor (sorry JEdit) and can interoperate with ANY SYSTEM YOU CAN THINK OF.
Learn them now!
(Oh yeah, use ant or make for building your system. Preferably make, but ant is easier when are you just starting and is more cross-platform)
I don't even mean stuff like that, I mean proprietary custom-build systems written for a specific purpose (remember that the US DOD is responsible for the creation of 2/3 of the software written in the US). Not many of these are meaningful to anyone, nor can many of them be discussed.
Plus, I am not the one making extraordinary claims, and so the burden of proof is not on me. It is on the people who make alarmist, sweeping statements like "Java is Dead", just because they can't go to the store and buy MS Office for Java or whatever they think constitutes the entire breadth of software development.
That's not the point. The vast majority of desktop applications on desktops right now are line of business applications. "Desktop" doesn't just mean Mary Jane's home computer. Commercial off the shelf software that you can "buy at the store" is a small percentage of the software that exists and makes up a small part of the money spent on software.
Statements like "Java on the client is dead" are just false, because that statement means that Java as a client-side technical solution is dead, which is not true. Yes, Java is not the language of choice for writing a web browser or a word-processor, but Java is an _excellent_ language for client-side business applications. It is far superior to VB, Delphi and PowerBuilder (especially when you couple it with J2EE), and that is where client-side Java fits.
Java is not even cold on the client, must less dead. There are TONS of line of business applications written in Java that are used on a daily basis. The web isn't everything. Just because you don't see Java Applets doesn't mean Java on the desktop is dead. Do a little research first.
It is designed for large systems, not Hello World applications. It is also designed as an architecture to direct development. I'd like to see you whip up database connection pooling and transaction management across any number of disparate database servers in a short amount of time and make it fully configurable.
I mean, by your logic, you don't need to rely on any standard or any pre-build system, because you can roll your own. Why use TCP/IP? I'm sure you can roll your own network protocol without all the "overhead" of the IP headers. I mean, to send one byte of data with TCP/IP requires 64 bytes!
Slashdot Mirror
Then, their product competes on it's merits of integrating the development process, and not on it's half-assed reimplementation of the same things that have been around for years for free in better editors.
Of course, one could argue, I guess, that this has already happened, and it's called UNIX.
The point is, why don't they use those editors as their basis for their integrated editor? Why re-invent the wheel so many times? Clearly, people won't use an IDE because of the superior text/code editing abilities; vim and emacs beat them all hands down. I understand they may not want to release their product as open-source and that may be a factor, but I guess it's a larger issue. Look at freshmeat and see how many IDEs there are, and how many "programmer's editors" there are. Seems like an awful waste of time and talent.
How many times in the history of mankind must syntax highlighting and folding be implemented in a code editor? Why can't all these IDE makers just use Vim (or even Emacs, or how about either?) as their code editor? I mean, emacs and vim are about a zillion times more powerful and feature-packed than any crappy IDE editor. What's the deal? It doesn't seem hard to just have the IDE contain a curses or terminal emulation layer where you can run a real editor, instead of these crappy knock-offs. It also would seem to be MUCH easier to do that rewriting an editor from scratch, yet again. Ugh.
Ant is a weak scripting language, with a retarded syntax, and no useful looping or conditional ability. It is the poorest build system I've ever seen, outside of "build.bat". I'm really excited for AAP, and hope it takes off and becomes usable. I personally never had a problem with make, but it's not cross-platform (because it depends on the various UNIX utilities), and ant is just so pathetically bad, and shows no signs of improving.
Unions do not do anyone any good except those who will not work hard and achieve. Without a union, you are still free to demand higher wages and better conditions and quit if you don't like it. A Union constricts the employers and employees and allows slugs to subsist on the achievement of others. If you want job security, go work for the government. Tech jobs are probably among the best, most well-paid and have the most favorable environments, and saying that you need a union to improve upon that is just crap.
Yeah, I did that when I first finished the game in hopes of getting a game programming job. That was about the time the economy went in the shitter, so I stayed with my posh web programmer gig :)
You'd have to ask the drummer of GWAR first. I stole it from him :)
Adventure Clone for PC
After you peel it, but before you cut it, you can rinse it off with water and that helps out quite a bit.
That's what's cool about DTS audio, they are just DVDs without any video. Not sure why they don't do this with Dolby Digital, as it is more widely supported by hardware.
Not sure if you are joking, but this has nothing to do with XML, and hopefully never will..
If you have a DTD capable recieve, there are several DTS encoded audio CDs that play in your DVD player and sound great!
some packets were lost today across the world in various network transactions.
And in other news, some food was eaten!
Maybe I should check it out again, but the WindowMaker dock was always really hard to use. It was hard to get applications into it that weren't there, and hard to customize. It has been a while for me, though.
1) Remove one-button mouse and replace with 2 (or more) button mouse
2) Ctrl-Click
I dunno, I find myself accidentally running apps twice on Windows and Linux, because I go to click on the app's icon in all cases.
This is a really important point, and this is the behavior of the oft-maligned OS X Dock. You see application icons in the Dock. You click them to use the application. If the application isn't running, it starts. It almost totally abstracts the user from the concept of which applications are running (much like a Palm interace). I would love to have this on Linux. Seperating out launchers from running tasks just makes no sense to me. You can see the major desktops starting to realize this. Both Windows and Gnome (maybe KDE?) are going towards rolling windows from the same task into the same taskbar entry. Now, if we can just make those entries the launchers (like it sounds like OEOne and OS X do), that would be great!
IDEs require lots of configuration as well. No project works exactly as the IDE vendor tells you. IDEs also lock you into working the way the vendor wants you to work. The fact that they are integrated may save you some setup time, but you are going to be less productive, especially the second you hit something that your IDE decided not to allow you to do.
Time isn't cheap. Time is expensive and precious. It's the one resource you or I can't replenish. I'd rather use an expensive IDE that saves me time rather than a potentially better editor that requires weeks to learn (yes, I already know them both quite well, but that's because I've used them for about 4 years now).
You spend most of your time coding typing in an editor. Your productivity is increased if you have an editor that lets you work the way you want to. It's a fallacy that an IDE automatically increases productivity. Every project I've seen them used on cause decreases in productivity.
Interoperability isn't really an excuse. Source is saved as ascii text. The only area you could possibly have trouble is line breaks. They're all interoperable.
What I mean is that the editor can interoperate with any other external program. Using make? vi and emacs will work. Using ant? they work. Using proprietary scripts because your project requires it and there's no other choice? vi and emacs work.
In terms of your percieved waste of time in setting up the editors, it's something you do once in your life for the vast majority of configuration needed. Setting it up for project-specific is not very time-consuming, and quite simple once you know the tool.
In a real dev environment, time saving dev tools such as an IDE are essential.
Not in my experience. And, anyway, an engineer that knows either VI or emacs really well can hit the ground running in almost any situation, which all the slaves to IDE-of-the-month are struggling to find out why hitting F5 doesn't compile their code. The arguments for open source and open standards in software apply to development tools. You are doing yourself a favor by using open, standard, easily understand and easily/widely available developer tools. When I bought a Mac, and wanted to do Java development on it, I had to just copy my .vimrc over to my home directory and I was ready to go. This guy is still looking for some JBuilder alternative, when he could be getting the job done.
I justify it by pointing you to the vim website and accompanying documentation. Note that vim != vi.
The same can all be said about emacs, though I don't use emacs, so I can't say for sure.
emacs has been around for years and years and is very robust and powerful.
vim (based on vi, which has been around for years and years) has been around for a really long time and is extremely powerful.
Both are far more powerful development environments than ANY IDE or any editor (sorry JEdit) and can interoperate with ANY SYSTEM YOU CAN THINK OF.
Learn them now!
(Oh yeah, use ant or make for building your system. Preferably make, but ant is easier when are you just starting and is more cross-platform)
Plus, I am not the one making extraordinary claims, and so the burden of proof is not on me. It is on the people who make alarmist, sweeping statements like "Java is Dead", just because they can't go to the store and buy MS Office for Java or whatever they think constitutes the entire breadth of software development.
Statements like "Java on the client is dead" are just false, because that statement means that Java as a client-side technical solution is dead, which is not true. Yes, Java is not the language of choice for writing a web browser or a word-processor, but Java is an _excellent_ language for client-side business applications. It is far superior to VB, Delphi and PowerBuilder (especially when you couple it with J2EE), and that is where client-side Java fits.
Java is not even cold on the client, must less dead. There are TONS of line of business applications written in Java that are used on a daily basis. The web isn't everything. Just because you don't see Java Applets doesn't mean Java on the desktop is dead. Do a little research first.
It is designed for large systems, not Hello World applications. It is also designed as an architecture to direct development. I'd like to see you whip up database connection pooling and transaction management across any number of disparate database servers in a short amount of time and make it fully configurable.
I mean, by your logic, you don't need to rely on any standard or any pre-build system, because you can roll your own. Why use TCP/IP? I'm sure you can roll your own network protocol without all the "overhead" of the IP headers. I mean, to send one byte of data with TCP/IP requires 64 bytes!
Don't talk about things you know nothing about.