OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids
dhasenan at gmail.com
Sun May 17 18:40:30 PDT 2009
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> BCS escribió:
>> Hello Georg,
>>> So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when
>>> their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's
>>> totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous
>>> horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.
>> I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of
>> language) needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between D
>> and C# is that with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C#
>> you won't get much at all done without one.
> I can't agree with this. Most of the time I use an IDE for the
> autocompletion, not much for the build-and-jump-to-error stuff. And I
> don't see D being easier with regards to remembering what's the name of
> that function, which members does a class have, in which module are all
> Why do you say that with D you can get away without an IDE and with C#
> you can't? I think you can do the same as in C#, don't use an IDE and
> get away with pretty much everything, except you'll be slower at it
> (same goes for D without an IDE).
The more boilerplate code a language requires, the more important it is
to have an IDE. Features that a language provides that allow you to
write less code make an IDE less important.
I really like IDEs. They let me think less when creating code.
Of course, the other feature is notifying the user about errors sooner
than their next compile. This saves a lot of time, regardless of whether
your language requires significant cruft or not.
More information about the Digitalmars-d