Re: "Visual" IDE? - You mean Emacs
On Mon, 11 May 1998, Edward Betts wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:08:28 +0100
> From: Edward Betts <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: "Visual" IDE? - You mean Emacs
> Resent-Date: 11 May 1998 21:17:18 -0000
> Resent-From: email@example.com
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> On Sun, 10 May, 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote:
> > SEGV <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > I understand that Visual Studio was created for the lowest common
> > > denominator (that's a fact, not an opinion), and that UNIX programmers
> > > are more comfortable with makefiles and command lines. But you have to
> > > admit that Visual Studio, and Metrowerks Codewarrior, are great IDEs.
> > >
> > > My question is, "Why is there nothing similar on UNIX?"
> > Generally the IDE systems confuse "integration" with closed monolithic design.
> > Just compare what unix accomplishes with simple protocols like the EDITOR
> > environment variable and the +lineno argument, compared with the baroque VS
> > extension API. Personally I have used VS and I would much prefer Emacs with
> > M-x gdb and M-x compile.
> Emacs is the only IDE, there is no other way of doing it.
Huh? Check out jcc at http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/jcc It's a
Codewarrior clone that uses the GNU tool chain on the backend. It's
"free" but a little restrictive license which may be loosened to GPL in
the future. It's nice.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org