[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:29:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> The only time I've actually had trouble with linux binaries is 
> when there's a problem with libc upgrades

The biggest offender for my home computer is gtk and glib. libc 
can be painful too - especially with work computers that stick to 
a particular version in the name of stability (I don't blame 
them, updating software is an exercise in pain. Even when they 
don't outright break things, so often they've changed it, now it 
sucks.).

But all those glib whatevers really kill me.


> On Windows, when
> installing stuff I used to always get messages like "this 
> installer

That's not such a problem anymore since Vista. The system does 
some magic rewrites so those naughty programs think they are 
writing to system folders, but are actually pretty isolated.

Still worries me on Linux though! "just run sudo make install", 
and trust you not to do anything wrong? Nope!


On both systems, I don't like installing programs. Whenever I 
can, I like to keep the application in its own folder and run it 
as my limited user account only (e.g., unzip dmd.zip, run 
./dmd2/linux/bin32/dmd. it just worked! and any versions can live 
side by side! and it didn't overwrite anything else another 
program might rely on! WIN!)

> Having said that, though, linux *is* more geared to building 
> from source than anything else

That'd be great if you didn't have to recreate the original 
author's environment on your computer, or wait seemingly forever 
for ./configure to run, then wait forever again for make to run, 
just to see if the program even does what you want it to do.

This is why my D programs usually just have a few files you can 
drop in. So I say "get my simpledisplay.d and color.d" and you 
don't have to install it, you don't have to download the same 
libraries I have, you just grab those two files and

dmd yourapp.d simpledisplay.d color.d

and boom, it *should* work. While I do have some other libs 
installed, various C headers and so forth, I think it is 
unreasonable to ask you, my user, to have all that too.


If modularity and DRY are at odds, I prefer to err on the side of 
fewer dependencies.

> but linux's customizability means

eh to an extent yes, but my custom window manager shouldn't mean 
your notepad program doesn't work. Maybe some special features 
won't be the same, but my preference in one location shouldn't 
break core functionality in another. There is a reasonable common 
denominator here - people don't customize their ELF loaders 
(much). They don't hack their kernels so the syscall numbers 
don't match. Those things actually work, so nobody really cares.

Why do people use other sound servers/modules or gui libraries? 
Because the default is broken. Not because they disagree, but 
because it is *broken*. So then everyone does their own fixes to 
work around it... and that leads to pain.

So it isn't end user customizability that cause the problem. It 
is mid-user patching a broken core.

> Isn't this thread already [OT]? ;-)

yeah but it wasn't meant to be a rant thread! oh well.