Re: IDE, IDL feedback needed.

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Saber Karmous (DSN) wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree.  We should track the function name too.  This will make
it easier to provide navigation through the code.  You can say
"Go to function move_cell()", and not have to worry about
calculating which line in which module it's on.  The line number
of the function should be calculated once, up front (and later
when that file is modified), not every time you want to jump to
it.

> 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... 

Absolutely.  The IDE needs to be aware of the object heirarchy. 
If you change the name of a member function in C++, the IDE needs
to respond differently (i.e. make changes in different places,
using different syntax) than it would to a straight C module, or
Python, or Scheme, whatever.  This should all be encapsulated.

Or, for that matter, it's very common to change parameter lists. 
Each language handles them differently, and (especially with C)
may allow different syntaxes (which users should be able to
customize transparently).  

I think the IDL should represent this, too.  Maybe something like
this:

interface Editor {
  [...]
  boolean gotoFunction(in string functionName) raises
(InvalidFunctionName);
  boolean changeFunctionName(in string oldName, in string
newName) raises  (InvalidFunctionName);
 [...]
 };

> 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

Right.  It would be nice to be able to customize that environment
view, to zoom into the project at whatever depth you needed, e.g.
global view, object view, file view.  I think the navigation is
one of the most important features of an IDE.  It can make or
break the IDE.

> 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
> this

What exactly do you mean by an IDE being active/passive?

John