OSNews

you can use sharpdevelop for windows.

You can also use Visual Studio. Just because it's not OSS, that doesn't mean it isn't a valid choice.

sharpdevelop is not nearly as fully featured, although I'm very glad it does exist, it is well written and an exlempary piece of FOSS, that other IDEs should follow closely.

Yes, but the price of SharpDevelop is significantly lower than Visual Studio.

For at least a couple more months the MS Studio Express versions will be a free download. Fully functional for my needs.

[i]A language is all but useless without a good development environment to back it up.</>

Yea... C and C++ where useless when we had to use just vi or emacs and make.

A language is all but useless without a good development environment to back it up.

Yea... C and C++ where useless when we had to use just vi or emacs and make.

He did say "all but useless"... not sure if that's what he meant though

Also, for some people vi/emacs and make is a "good development environment"

In your logic Qt would died long time ago.

Actually, vsprj2make -- the Visual Studio Add-in -- has been available and in use by many developers for well over a year now

Visual Studio .NET is very good as well as SharpDevelop. However, the availablility of these fine IDEs has not diminished the interest in MonoDevelop. In fact, I am also working on porting MonoDevelop to Windows, but even when available, I will continue to work on our Mono Add-in for Visual Studio, because the more the merrier

My original proposal was first published back in June 2004, and I had a working prototype available a week later. You can read it here:

http://www.mfconsulting.com/product/prj2make-sharp/vsprj2make_Propo...

I am a user of MonoDevelop and find it great. I fail to see how this will seal its fate as Visual Studio does not run on linux.

Perhaps you meant to say "will seal monodevelops fate on windows" which by virtue of not being there, is largely sealed already.

From what I've read they're porting MonoDevelop to Windows very soon, but if there is a plug-in for VS that accomplishes the same thing then I really don't see the point of porting it. Of course choices are always nice, but virtually all professional Windows developers have VS installed which IMO is vastly superior to MonoDevelop. I'm not saying I don't like MD; it's not bad given how new it is...but the bigger point is that the VS add-in will make Mono a more compelling platform to code against for those of us more familiar with VS.

From what I've read they're porting MonoDevelop to Windows very soon...

Errr, it's called SharpDevelop and it already runs on Windows. Doh!

Perhaps you meant to say "will seal monodevelops fate on windows" which by virtue of not being there, is largely sealed already.

MonoDevelop on Windows is SharpDevelop, and unfortunately there is no code sharing now between the two projects which pretty much seal MonoDevelop's fate on any platform really.

Yeah, the 30 minutes it takes me to install Visual Studio is a total pain in the ass. Oh wait, then there's the 5 minutes it takes to configure where I want the different windows and whatnot. Oh wait, the new version of VS has an export settings wizard, so that's 5 minutes saved!

If IDE's are overrated, then why do the majority of software developers use them? It must be that whole productivity boosting thing, but I guess that doesn't matter to some folks.

Approx. 40 minutes to get started with an IDE. And that's just the beginning. Talk about productivity boosting.

30 minutes to install.

And yeah, that way more than 30 minutes the IDE will save you (ESPECIALLY when debugging).. yeah.. definitely not worth it..

you can press this RUN button and your project automagically runs, awesome dude!

I see nothing wrong with this. Would you rather flick 30 switches before starting your car up, or just twist the key? Compiler switches can easily be put in a dialog as tick and text boxes and seen only when wanted.

IDEs are overrated...

Another clueless post by someone who probably thinks he's hardcore with Vim.

You would, most likely, get fired for not using the proper, productivity-enhancing tools when programming in languages like C# or Java.

C and languages like Ruby are another story, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And I've never been locked into an IDE. If you were locked in you couldn't recompile on Mono.

Any business that fires you for not using an IDE is not worth working for. Productivity enhancing my ass. More like headache enhancing. You certainly have no experience importing/exporting "large" projects from one IDE to another. Ahem, it's quite "productive." No, I'm not talking about your silly 100 line school project.

They wouldn't fire you for not using an IDE, they would fire you because your productivity levels compared to your teammates would be horrendous. Importing/exporting projects? What is this, the 1960's all of a sudden? That's what source control is for. But given your take on IDE's, you would probably prefer the project be on floppy and let each member of the team pass it around whenever they need to do some work on it.

Unless we live in alternative universes, I don't believe source control is for exporting/importing projects. If your IDE tells you that, it has lied to you.

Any business that fires you for not using an IDE is not worth working for. Productivity enhancing my ass.

And please tell your PHB that you're going to do that next project in Assembly. By the way, there are vi keybindings for VS, Eclipse, and IDEA. That's the only good thing about Vim (the keybindings).

vi keybindings for VS? Got any links where I could find more info?

http://www.ngedit.com/viemu.html.

Wow, thanks.

I've been saying to my friends for years that I wish Visual Studio had a vim-like mode. I knew that Visual Studio was extensible with plugins, but not this extensible. Sweet.

VIM/Emacs too are also retarded in the sense they are as much of a pain to use initially as the convoluted IDEs I've had the displeasure of using. GUI Builders are a big joke. Ever tried maintaining code generated by one? I guess not. Third party debuggers are available a dime a dozen. Almost all the IDEs I've used have broken, buggy or totally lame debuggers. If you had mentioned refactoring tools, then you'd have scored some points. But debuggers? Puleeasse! If you are using an IDE's GUI builder to develop your code, welcome to the world of lock in and non-portable code. They are as lame as code generators.

MyStillBeef, it's becoming more and more clear that you don't and never will do professional development. A GUI builder like Glade spits out XML (not source) and you just wire up your events.

Once again, you'd be fired for wasting everybody's time.

And it's become evident that you are a twat, glade and many GUI builders also generate source code, Mr Professional developer.

Not Glade3, and the preferred professional way was to always just call into the glade library and not generate the C code. Have fun in hobbyist land.

Who uses Glade3? Is it even in beta yet? Oh the irony, Mr professional uses a GUI builder that isn't even production ready yet. Keep me entertained.

This has nothing to do with Glade3 except to point out that everybody is moving away from generating source directly. I never said I used Glade3.

But you're not going to be able to weasel out by changing he subject. Everybody knows that generating source is lame (Glade2 only generated C...maybe C++ IIRC). All the other language bindings to Glade had no source code generated.

I know you're bitter because you're getting slapped around on this thread by everybody, but the days of people thinking you're hardcore because you use VI are over kid. But don't worry, nobody expects any kind of productivity or responsibility from you in hobbyist land.

Dude, you could use a clue. First of all, nobody uses Glade3. I don't know any project that uses it. Sighting as an example exposed your cluelessness and out of touch with real word development. Secondly, many GUI builders that even generate xml/ini/{your_fav_data_structure} files produce almost incomprehensive and ridiculously obfuscated sources to the point that only the GUI builder used to generate the file can be used to edit it, hence the lock in. Go ahead, try using your XCode GUI files in CodeWarrior. Lastly, many many so called professional developers use GUI builders to generate raw code that other people have to maintain. Many of whom are not even real programmers, so they don't even have a clue what they are doing to begin with. I applaud you for making me laugh. ...Glade3...

Who uses Glade3? Is it even in beta yet? Oh the irony, Mr professional uses a GUI builder that isn't even production ready yet. Keep me entertained.

It wouldn't matter if he would use it. XML spec that glade3 provides is stable, software that produces it isn't.

In translation. As long as missing or crashing features are in question for GUI builder, this doesn't invalidate his comment for a single bit. Ok, so it crashed, rerun and do it over again (or use another one that produces XML by same spec. Almost all GUI builders for GTK support glade XML). XML you produce will be as it should. And this is all that it matters.

p.s. he even specified not to produce source but xml.

I don't know the XML spec Glade3 provides because quite frankly nobody uses it yet. I don't even know if Glade3 will be backward compatible with Glade2 and if it will finally support GTKUIManager. Today, we can't speculate on Glade3 until it is actually released, at least from my point of view.

Glade2 is what everybody uses. But Glade2 or 3 are not even the interesting technologies when it comes to XML generated UIs. libglade is. libglade is installed on almost every *nix OS. It's a standard. You don't need an IDE to generate libglade xml source. In fact, other GUI builders for *nix can interpret libglade xml files.

This is not the case with GUI Builders developed as part of an IDE, especially on other platforms like Windows. Each IDE usually comes up with its own obfuscated xml/ini/database/{latest_trend} format, that is almost always incompatible with other IDEs. The resultant effect is that some of these IDEs default to generating source code. And if that is not the case, there's usually a way to bundle/package the proprietary format into the application so it can be used on the host system. The IDE will happily automate the process, sometimes behind the users' back. Once that happens, you are stuck forever using that IDE to work on that project.

The work around is to provide an import/export function that converts the project format of one IDE to another, but the whole process is unreliable and error prone at best. I've worked with IDEs, too many to mention. In college we had to use VS for all our projects. Far too much time was lost as a result of just trying to get things to work "correctly." When close to half of the semester is devoted to teaching you how to use an IDE, you know there is something fundamentally broken about them.

I don't care if my statement is unpopular, but I stand by them. IDEs are overrated. Like I said VS is popular on Windows, because Windows is not a developer's environment. When you install any *nix OS, you have effectively installed a development environment. This not the case on Windows where software development == VS. Yes, I am a whole lot more productive developing on Unix than I'm in VS or your other bloated IDE. And that's because I have so many development tools at my finger tips that a VS developer can only dream off. I'm not gonna bother ranting on portability.

PS: I'm an ex-VIM power user. I don't use it anymore. And I can't stand Emacs, so the VIM/Emacs insults will only make me laugh.

Edited 2006-02-26 16:31

You mean it is more important to waste my time learning the nuances of an IDE as opposed to getting real work done? I'm glad I don't work for you.

so what-do-ya-suggest, being "cool" guy who does-not-use-ides? let's say i want to build c# winforms app. how do i do it in your "more efficient" way?

haha

Edited 2006-02-25 23:28

Where did you get the idea that you need an IDE to be on time and on bugdet? Many projects use IDEs that aren't on time and on bugdet. Any what is wrong with printfs and gdb? There are much more mature, stable and reliable than 90% of the junk in some of the IDEs I've used.

Any what is wrong with printfs and gdb? There are much more mature, stable and reliable than 90% of the junk in some of the IDEs I've used.

So only printf and gdb are mature, stable, and reliable now? Let's hope that printf is freaking stable since it's been around for decades. But is gdb stable if an IDE writes some code to interact with it? I guess gdb is only stable if it's used on the comand line.

See, your problem is that your having a hard time comprehending that it's 2006 and not 1996, and nobody thinks your hardcore for being command-line only. But you've painted yourself in a corner now, so it's fun watching you go down in flames.

Once you realize that you don't have to choose between command line tools, printfs, IDEs, and that you can use the tool that fits the job then you'll be able to get yourself a job.

Oh my! Except that GDB has had several GUI front ends for so long now. And for other languages and frameworks there are also GUI debuggers that also work on the command line too. Heck, if my memory isn't hazy, the Eclipse CDT for C/C++ development uses GDB as its debugger or has a plug-in for it. I'm not wasting my time conversing with you any more, less I weep from your ignorance.

Wow, MyStillBeef, Now you've just proven that you're incapable of reading. My whole post was about using a command line tools with an IDE. So is GDB worthless if it's used from an IDE - or any command line tool?

Many projects just aren't on time, period. This is usually the fault of PM's/Management/etc, and has nothing to do with what tool is used to hammer out the code.

The project I'm working on now would simply be impossible without the aid of an IDE (Visual Studio in this case), as are most of the projects I've worked on in the past. It's becoming pretty obvious that you've never used a decent IDE such as VS (or Eclipse/IntelliJ/etc). It really might do you some good to get out of your college compsci 101 mindset and give some modern IDE's a shot.

Note to self: No more feeding the troll after this post.

Well I'm not surprised. Windows is the most horrible development platform ever to grace the planet. I also know many shops that are locked to VS, because there's nothing better. And hence my earlier rant. You pretty much can't do any Windows development without VS in this day and age.

That's quite a ballsy statement. Coming from you, it carries very little weight though.

And tell the MASM32 geeks they can't do any windows development. Tell that to people using Visual Slickedit. Tell that to people using PowerBASIC. Tell that to people using Delphi.

Are you kidding me? I can't count how many windows developers become mentally numb when you tell them to use anything outside VS. MASM32 geeks? Ha!

Wow, so the windows devs you know use VS, and that represents everyone. Fantastic. I know a bunch of devs that use IDEs besides for VS.

You're clueless man.

Actually, all the Windows developers I know use it. It's like the industry standard. Please clue me in. Smart ass.