[SWLUG] Wow, seen this on Slashdot?

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 16:12 +0000, Justin Mitchell wrote:
> I have recently had to take over doing some bits of windows programming
> in my job as the 'windows expert' wasnt getting very far.
> 
> I really dont see what all the fuss is about these IDE's, the
> auto-complete features can be handy when working on an OO style language
> true enough (especially considering how awful the docs tend to be) but
> then the rest of the text editor is really frustratingly dumb when your
> used to the power of an editor like vi, and the debugger is really
> substandard compared to something like gdb.
> with the added 'bonus' that because they are all integrated you cant
> replace any of it with better ones.
> 
> So the only 'environment' i need when programming in C, or other
> compiled languages is gvim and a text term with 'make' and 'man' in it.
> (you can call make from inside vim, i just prefer not to)
> 
> There are also add-on scripts for vim and others to add auto-complete
> features.
> 
> So, either i am missing some really key feature of the likes of borland
> and microsoft visual studios, or those people complaining about a lack
> of 'development environment' on linux just cant see the wood for the
> trees.
I would say 'cannot see the wood for the trees'. At the moment I am
feeling a bit of a die-hard in my reluctance to switch from the GNU HC12
compiler to using the code warrior IDE. Why aren't we doing this, a
'contractor' on another project is, type questions. 

I must say I prefer a shell and makefile environment. I like emacs,
never got into vi, but lets not argue about religion.

I have used Borland Builder for some projects, the editor is s..t. I run
everything through emacs to get the code looking tidy. I also cannot
help feeling that a few ticks in boxes, that are hard to find again is
neither as repeatable or as well configured as some proper headers and
makefiles.

Phil