Re: Learning C++
"James Kanze" <james.kanze@gmail.com>
There is a middle road between everything graphic and in menus,
and having to write every dependency yourself, or even write
some complicated code in make to generate them automatically.
Sure. Just like many people wrote here -- make & co. is used to have "all
the power" and to suffice the "I f...ing rule" approach. While IDEs are
built around pre-thought defaults and use cases. And outrside that you're
often hosed or handicapped. But if the supported stuff is along your path,
you can sit back and enjoy.
This thread was about learning, I said that IMO in the phase one learns the
language -- or I could add, a system API, or a library/framework -- there is
no need for the excess power and customization level.
The "new project" wizards' idea of a project layout may not fit some
expert's fine-tuned layout, but I doubt it is not good to try out whatever
is subject of learning. You won't keep that stuff anyway, do you?
And while, as you told, make-writers do not speak with many
compiler-writers, the advice to use the resulting mess is IMO only good for
the lucky situation when they did. ;-)
Just like you have a selection of shells on unix, you can do
the same on windows. And certainly all the unix "tools" are
available.
Just appear much less needed.
Do they? I don't know any really good programmer under Windows
who doesn't use them.
What I wanted to say, they will be sitting there installed, almost sure, but
most time just collecting dust. (Hm, I exclude the cases when they are
invoked by specialized scripts/programs made to cover some use case...)
There was a good joke about ATM with unix interface. ;-)
Unfortunately the keywords are not google-friendly, but I'm
sure you can imagine it.
Yes, but the target audience isn't the same.
Do you really think that interface dexterity shall count that much in that
kind of design? So if the most common use case is "withdraw $50" it is put
on a button only for "idiots", while the experts are damned to type in the
whole command and the actual amount? Because they can, reliably? And may
want to fetch $3.1415 more often then others?
And the point is, that if you can carry out what you want with
a single keypress or click (sometimes with 2, other times with
0) why use more? Why re-type the info before you (or paste
it) if avoidable?
The point is that you can't. Regardless of the IDE. You can't
enter code with a single click,
I what? Thinking up and writing code was never the task of the IDE (or any
editor). It is environment to work, not replacement of the programmer.
I don't expect code written. (Though simple editors do have ability to
insert common code fractions on up to 2 clicks or keys).
But I do expect to
- have instant and easy access to most relevant information (like in code
definition windows, call/caller graphs, man/msdn pages)
- navigation around all the interesting locations (like mentioned before +
error spot from build)
- sensible management of windows and panes that present the stuff I am
working with
- easy access to most/all tools I need along the road (editors for different
kinds of sources, the build, debuggers, source control)
And I certainly welcome additional intelligent behavior, like auto-checkout
files I type into, collect TODOs, pending checkins, etc.
and you can't do any advanced editing with a single click.
What is "advanced editing" mean?
Refactoring actions? I never used such an editor yet, but would welcome --
it certainly sounds like an IDE functionality and hardly doable by atomic
tools.
Reformatting code? That is basic in most anything.
Search/replace in all project files? I can do it in IDE, not sure how it is
doable for a general case with make-build... Especially ad-hoc and without
pain.
Please give some example what case were you thinking here.