Hello! Thanks for your comment! On 6/9/21 9:19 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Cool :-) By the way, how is Elementary Code, an IDE? Upstream calls > it a "[code-specific] text-editor" here ( > https://medium.com/elementaryos/scratch-is-now-code-2838e03134c7 ), > and it sounds like Code is intended to be like Atom, "a hackable text > editor" ( https://atom.io ), rather than something like GNOME Builder > or XCode ( https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7oi8nf/scratch_text_editor_is_now_elementary_code/dsafxmb/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). If I had to compare it I'd say it's more like Atom, yes. I have never heard of XCode, so I can't really say anything about it, but GNOME Builder is pretty much targeted at people developing for GNOME. Not that it's not useful elsewhere, but it really focuses on it, having "official" support only for the languages they use the most with GNOME (like C/C++, Python or Rust). And it behaves a lot more like an IDE with a lot of extra features. > If you'd like to use "IDE" in the long description to make it > discoverable with keyword or regex searches, maybe something could be > written about how Code is more than a text editor, but that it's for > people who don't want a full-featured IDE? Does it support templates, > macros, code folding, any kind of linting or language server-based IDE > features (LSP), tab completion of variable, function, or class names, > etc? More simply, does it have an LSP plugin like > https://github.com/atom-community/atom-languageclient or is one > planned? Ideally it'd be nice if upstream could make a statement > about their vision and objectives for Code on its homepage > https://github.com/elementary/code That's a good point. In fact, in their original description for it, they mention that it _can_ become a full featured IDE if the user wants it to. But it's designed with minimalism in mind, and has basic features. It doesn't have all the features GNOME Builder has but, in their words, one can "install extensions to turn Code into a full-blown IDE". > Because you use the keyword "minimalist", I wonder if the authors of > this software (and perhaps yourself) believe that full-featured IDEs > are not the best way to work ;-) Not being an IDE can be a desirable > feature, after all! I don't know about the authors; as far as I'm concerned, I've coded with emacs for 20+ years so I'm still trying to decide which way to go. I guess it depends on project/language. But I do like Code's minimalistic approach. -- []'s, Francisco M Neto <fmneto@fmneto.com> www.fmneto.com 3E58 1655 9A3D 5D78 9F90 CFF1 D30B 1694 D692 FBF0
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xD30B1694D692FBF0.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature