OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[BCS]

Reply to Daniel,

> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>> 
>>>> one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files.
>>>> This is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and
>>>> their complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from
>>>> using different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C#
>>>> sources since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is
>>>> not the build tool but rather the compilation model itself.
>>>> 
>>> I think you are in error here as the c# files don't contain enough
>>> information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You
>>> might be able to get away with throwing every single
>>> .cs/.dll/whatever file in the project at the compiler all at once.
>>> (Now if you want to talk about archaic!) Aside from that, how can it
>>> find meta-data for your types?
>>> 
>> you're mistaken since there are build tools that support C#. I think
>> I saw this in Scons last time I looked.
>> 
> Maybe you should back up your statements instead of just guessing.
> 
> http://www.scons.org/wiki/CsharpBuilder
> 
> Oh look, you have to list all the source files because C# source files
> *do not contain enough information*.
> 
> A C# source file containing "using Foo.Bar;" tells you exactly ZERO
> about what other files it depends on.
> 
> -- Daniel
> 

Exactly. The only practical way to deal with C# is an IDE or build system 
of some kind that is aware of C#. You /can/ deal with it by hand but IMHO 
that would be about half way from D to using C without even a make file or 
build script.