RE: IDE, IDL feedback needed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be a whole lot better if you
would combine those two, both the line number and the function name are
important, I think that recent IDE's aren't only using line numbering.
You have to track the object hierachy too... I think you have to think
more radically, IDE's aren't really accessible, the dragging and
dropping in all those Visual IDE's is nice but it's limited... What
would be nice  was a two screen setup, the first screen would have you
code, the second screen would have a active environment of your program,
so if you would add functionality it would be active directly on the
second screen. The second screen would interpret your code and execute
it directly... That would be cool... IDE's are nice but the
edit-compile-debug cycle just take too damn long even on a 1000MHZ 4GB
P13 multiprocessor, it will always take to much time... An IDE should be
active not passive, the only active part of current IDE's is the
debugger... Please consider my thoughts and I hope to hear more about

Saber Karmous


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Martijn van Beers []
> Sent:	24 June 1998 11:08
> To:	Samuel Ziegler
> Subject:	Re: IDE, IDL feedback needed.
> On Wed, Jun 24, 1998 at 12:47:48AM -0700, Samuel Ziegler wrote:
> > My concept for the IDL began with the thought that a file is the
> > atomic unit of an IDE. Editors / debuggers / source control /
> > etc... all deal with things in terms of files. Also, the only other
> > piece of info needed to be passed around the IDE, in terms of files,
> > is a line number.  Ie, set a break point at line X... the current
> line
> > of execution is  Y...  Everything else is either dealt with within a
> > given piece of the IDE (ie editing a line of of the file) or by the
> > operating system (ie a file is read only).  Now this may be an
> > incorrect assumption, but it is the one I've been using so far.  
> I think it might be, but I'm not sure. What I'm missing in all this is
> a GUI Builder. If you include that, don't you need to be able to
> communicate
> on a per function basis, not per file? Consider changing a name of a
> function,
> you wouldn't want the builder to have knowledge of the number of the
> line of
> code where the function was declared and the line where the function
> is
> implemented. Would you need function-level communication for that, or
> could
> you get away with just giving the new and the old name, and have the
> editor
> search/replace?
> cya,
> Martijn
> -- 
> Martijn van Beers
> -- 
>          To unsubscribe: mail with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]