Favorite IDE?

Pages: 1 2 345

computerequip wrote:
You say that and yet GCC supports C++0x well more than VC++ 2010.

I merely meant as opposed to VC++ 2008 ;)

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

Anyhow, back to IDE's. Emacs anyone xD?

Emacs is a great OS, too bad it has a really poor editor ;)

kfmfe04 (788)

over the years, went from vi to xemacs to a bunch of full-blown IDEs then back to vim

Last edited on

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

Vim is like a "blackhole of awesome", no matter what else I try, it always sucks me back in.

kfmfe04 (788)

I concur - the more I use vim, the more I like it - it's like a turbocharged vi

history of vi - for those that don't know, vi was invented by Bill Joy years before he made NFS, Sun, BSD Unix, and parts of Java - from this link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/11/bill_joys_greatest_gift/

Bill Joy wrote:
What happened is that Ken Thompson came to Berkeley and brought this broken Pascal system, and we got this summer job to fix it. While we were fixing it, we got frustrated with the editor we were using which was named ed. ed is certainly frustrating. We got this code from a guy named George Coulouris at University College in London* called em - Editor for Mortals - since only immortals could use ed to do anything. By the way, before that summer, we could only type in uppercase. That summer we got lowercase ROMs for our terminals. It was really exciting to finally use lowercase. So we modified em and created en. I don't know if there was an eo or an ep but finally there was ex. [laughter] I remember en but I don't know how it got to ex. So I had a terminal at home and a 300 baud modem so the cursor could move around and I just stayed up all night for a few months and wrote vi.

Bill Joy wrote:

What happened is that Ken Thompson came to Berkeley and brought this broken Pascal system, and we got this summer job to fix it. While we were fixing it, we got frustrated with the editor we were using which was named ed. ed is certainly frustrating.

We got this code from a guy named George Coulouris at University College in London* called em - Editor for Mortals - since only immortals could use ed to do anything. By the way, before that summer, we could only type in uppercase. That summer we got lowercase ROMs for our terminals. It was really exciting to finally use lowercase.

So we modified em and created en. I don't know if there was an eo or an ep but finally there was ex. [laughter] I remember en but I don't know how it got to ex. So I had a terminal at home and a 300 baud modem so the cursor could move around and I just stayed up all night for a few months and wrote vi.

Linux Mag then asked: "So you didn't really write vi in one weekend like everybody says?"

Bill Joy wrote:
No. It took a long time. It was really hard to do because you've got to remember that I was trying to make it usable over a 300 baud modem. That's also the reason you have all these funny commands. It just barely worked to use a screen editor over a modem. It was just barely fast enough. A 1200 baud modem was an upgrade. 1200 baud now is pretty slow. 9600 baud is faster than you can read. 1200 baud is way slower. So the editor was optimized so that you could edit and feel productive when it was painting slower than you could think. Now that computers are so much faster than you can think, nobody understands this anymore. The people doing Emacs were sitting in labs at MIT with what were essentially fibre-channel links to the host, in contemporary terms. They were working on a PDP-10, which was a huge machine by comparison, with infinitely fast screens. So they could have funny commands with the screen shimmering and all that, and meanwhile, I'm sitting at home in sort of World War II surplus housing at Berkeley with a modem and a terminal that can just barely get the cursor off the bottom line. It was a world that is now extinct. People don't know that vi was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore - unless you decide to get a satellite phone and use it to connect to the Net at 2400 baud, in which case you'll realize that the Net is not usable at 2400 baud. It used to be perfectly usable at 1200 baud. But these days you can't use the Web at 2400 baud because the ads are 24KB.

Bill Joy wrote:

No. It took a long time. It was really hard to do because you've got to remember that I was trying to make it usable over a 300 baud modem. That's also the reason you have all these funny commands. It just barely worked to use a screen editor over a modem. It was just barely fast enough. A 1200 baud modem was an upgrade. 1200 baud now is pretty slow.

9600 baud is faster than you can read. 1200 baud is way slower. So the editor was optimized so that you could edit and feel productive when it was painting slower than you could think. Now that computers are so much faster than you can think, nobody understands this anymore.

The people doing Emacs were sitting in labs at MIT with what were essentially fibre-channel links to the host, in contemporary terms. They were working on a PDP-10, which was a huge machine by comparison, with infinitely fast screens.

So they could have funny commands with the screen shimmering and all that, and meanwhile, I'm sitting at home in sort of World War II surplus housing at Berkeley with a modem and a terminal that can just barely get the cursor off the bottom line.

It was a world that is now extinct. People don't know that vi was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore - unless you decide to get a satellite phone and use it to connect to the Net at 2400 baud, in which case you'll realize that the Net is not usable at 2400 baud. It used to be perfectly usable at 1200 baud. But these days you can't use the Web at 2400 baud because the ads are 24KB.

lfnunley (62)

Still, code::blocks is a good, modern UPDATED ide.

closed account (GbX36Up4)

code::blocks is good and all but I prefer wxDEv-cpp, it is easy to get libraries in and I just like the interface. I currently used Dev-cpp on this computer and code-blocks on my personal one as I don't use allegro on it and thus don't need the easy library implementing capabilities of dev-cpp :D

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

I've recently started using CodeLite, and I have to say, it's my favorite "non-Visual Studio" C++ IDE. There are a few bugs in the interface, but overall, it's very easy to use and stays out of my way. It lets me write my own Makefiles too, so that's a plus.

closed account (GbX36Up4)

I feel like total n00b, Isnt a make file used when setting up libraries or something like that? I remember seeing cmake in a allegro library tutorial.

closed account (S6k9GNh0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

Cmake and make are completely different.

Last edited on

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

I've always thought Cmake was bit of a misnomer, it's more off a Configure script than a makefile...

blackcoder41 (1426)

My Hall of Fame
1. Code::Blocks
2. Visual Studio 2008
3. Notepad++

My Hall of Shame
1. Dev-C++
2. wxDev-C++
3. Netbeans
~~4. Eclipse~~
5. Visual Studio 6

On Ubuntu (or other linux variant), nothing because it's just not very convenient for me. I'm just learning it for experience and exploring.

[edit]
I guess eclipse is OK.

Last edited on

closed account (S6k9GNh0)

Actually, I still don't understand Notepad++. It seems rather easy to use but internally it's a mess and externally, there are various bugs when going into advanced setup. It uses cross-platform libraries but then used WinAPI directly for windowing and widgets? Qt, GTK+, wxWidgets, pick your poison but why remove flexibility to use WinAPI directly? They didn't even wrap it so it can be extended later.

Where's CodeLite T.T?

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

<3 CodeLite

blackcoder41 (1426)

computerquip wrote:
It uses cross-platform libraries but then used WinAPI directly for windowing and widgets?

I thought it only uses Scintilla.

computerquip wrote:
Qt, GTK+, wxWidgets, pick your poison but why remove flexibility to use WinAPI directly?

What do you mean by that? I don't think it uses any of those libraries.

computerquip wrote:
Where's CodeLite T.T?

In my opinion, it mimics Code::Blocks but with pretty user interface. Also I think it's buggy.

closed account (S6k9GNh0)

I mean that it doesn't use those libraries and chooses to use the WinAPI directly which removes any chance of portability. I don't mind that entirely since one may not have preference for the stated widget libraries but at *least* wrap it up so the implementation can be changed later with ease.

It does use Scintilla which is its only dependency that I know of.

Last edited on

blackcoder41 (1426)

computerquip wrote:
Qt, GTK+, wxWidgets, pick your poison but why remove flexibility to use WinAPI directly?

Oh! How dummy am I? I forgot about my english lesson. It's an irony right? wew!! xp

Anyway, at least it runs on windows and wine, I'm good with that.

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

Notepad++ is written in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener environment.

From the front-page of the site. It's a design choice, to reduce overhead, ensure optimal execution speed and reduce power consumption by using OS APIs directly and using language standard features instead of bloating the program with useless libraries and dependencies.

closed account (S6k9GNh0)

And since when was flexibility a direct cause of bloat and poor execution speed?

closed account (1yR4jE8b)

Other than being cross-platform, what advantages do any other Toolkits have over the Windows API?

Pages: 1 2 345