What do people here use as an IDE?

[so]

A language should not limit you, some people might like it, i don't.

No need to waste time on this, if you believe those languages can do  
things that you say, write a simple but competitive ray/pathtracer. No  
need to use sse or any fancy stuff, just bare compiler with its standard  
library, compare with those out there. If it outperforms the ones out  
there, i will be the first one to switch, why would i stay? I know C++'s  
shortcomings more than those language fans that actually don't code but  
talk :)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:59:07 +0300, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:28:27 +0300, so wrote:
>
>>> What's your definition of a "system language"? Being able to write
>>> operating systems, OS drivers, kernel mode applications, embedded small
>>> footprint applications, server applications, games, simulations, HPC?
>>> If you only need one of these domains in your project, why should you
>>> care about the rest - the right tool for the job, right?
>>
>> It is right, right (and only) tool in those domains, and as you can see
>> it is kind of a large area.
>> None of those languages are the right tool in those areas, are they?
>
> I'm just saying that a single tool doesn't need to excel in all those
> domains. Pick one problem and one language / set of languages for the
> solution. Server programming and C# -- why not? I've even done that
> commercially (nothing big, but anyway). Games in Scala -- doesn't sound
> bad. It depends so much on the language's implementation.
>
>>> I'm guessing your definition is the one that makes functional languages
>>> or imperative languages with different syntax from C/C+++ look bad and
>>> C/C
>>> ++ shine. Your agenda is to crush all competition because the retarded
>>> competitors think *differently* and that's dangerous!
>>
>> I said i like Haskell, also python... i am not an OOP fan. I don't have
>> an agenda to crash any competition. How did you get here beyond me...
>>
>> Look, i said things like "OS" "C audience", "high performance", "system
>> language". Is that really hard to get?
>
> 'High performance' and 'system language' are both badly defined. From
> historical perspective something that *was* fast 30 years ago can't
> nowadays compete with sofware written in the slower languages. In the
> Java world the same binary might run faster on a more recent VM, but this
> isn't the case with proprietary native executables. There's no single
> answer to the question.
>
> For example, is LLVM a good tool for high performance code? Does it have
> lots of potential? I think it does. I think it's one of the best tools
> for the job -- even funnier, the Glasgow Haskell is using LLVM as its
> backend.


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/