Home > Archive > PHP Programming > October 2005 > What IDE are you using?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What IDE are you using?
|
|
| typingcat@gmail.com 2005-10-23, 7:55 am |
| First of all, I'm an Asian and I need to input Japanese, Korean and so
on. I've tried many PHP IDEs today, but almost non of them supported
Unicode (UTF-8) file.
I've found that the only Unicode support IDEs are DreamWeaver 8 and
Zend PHP Studio.
DreamWeaver provides full support for Unicode. However, DreamWeaver is
a web editor rather than a PHP IDE. It only supports basic IntelliSense
(or code completion) and doesn't have anything like a class view.
Zend PHP Studio supports Unicode but have many problems. It couldn't
display Korean when I set a Japanese font for the editor, and couldn't
display Japanese when I set a Korean font for the editor. The most
obvious problem is it's too slow. It provides really good support for
coding like class view, debugging and advanced IntelliSense, but it's
too slow for my PC.
I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.
| |
| Janwillem Borleffs 2005-10-23, 7:55 am |
| typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
> I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
> I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.
>
I'm not using an IDE, EditPlus is all I need. But if I would want to use an
IDE, I would go for Eclipse.
JW
| |
| Andy Jeffries 2005-10-23, 6:56 pm |
| typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
> I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
> I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.
I use gPHPEdit(www.gphpedit.org), but then I would - I'm the author of it!
That won't help you though as it doesn't work under Windows (yet,
someone is giving porting a go). It also doesn't have debugging
support, but it does have integrated help (using PHP HTML docs) and a
class browser.
Cheers,
Andy
| |
| typingcat@gmail.com 2005-10-23, 6:56 pm |
| So you don't use an IDE but just a text editor? Well, many computer
gurus did like that in the past, but doesn't it take too much time for
a novice like to remember all the members and functions or look them up
in the manual? I think code completion and class view really helps
people like me.
Janwillem Borleffs wrote:
> typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not using an IDE, EditPlus is all I need. But if I would want to use an
> IDE, I would go for Eclipse.
>
>
> JW
| |
| Janwillem Borleffs 2005-10-23, 6:56 pm |
| typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
> So you don't use an IDE but just a text editor? Well, many computer
> gurus did like that in the past, but doesn't it take too much time for
> a novice like to remember all the members and functions or look them
> up in the manual? I think code completion and class view really helps
> people like me.
>
True, but OTOH, code completion makes people lazy. Text editors force you to
remember functions, which I think is a benefit.
JW
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-23, 6:56 pm |
| Janwillem Borleffs said the following on 23/10/2005 17:06:
> typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
>
> True, but OTOH, code completion makes people lazy. Text editors force you to
> remember functions, which I think is a benefit.
>
Are you serious?? ;)
Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
hundreds/thousands of functions?
That's just a massive pain in the arse, and surely must slow you down
considerably, especially when you only find you made a mistake at
run-time... You might as well be programming in assembler if you like it
raw! :)
Admittedly, the benefit of class-views etc. must be somewhat limited for
a dynamically-typed language like PHP. But in strongly-typed languages
like C++, C# or Java that have *massive* APIs, intellisense and
class-views etc. are an absolute god-send.
IMO, being a good programmer is not about knowing the fine details of
the language syntax; syntax is just a means to an end.
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-23, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Janwillem Borleffs said the following on 23/10/2005 17:06:
>
>
> Are you serious?? ;)
>
> Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
> hundreds/thousands of functions?
>
> That's just a massive pain in the arse, and surely must slow you down
> considerably, especially when you only find you made a mistake at
> run-time... You might as well be programming in assembler if you like it
> raw! :)
>
>
> Admittedly, the benefit of class-views etc. must be somewhat limited for
> a dynamically-typed language like PHP. But in strongly-typed languages
> like C++, C# or Java that have *massive* APIs, intellisense and
> class-views etc. are an absolute god-send.
>
> IMO, being a good programmer is not about knowing the fine details of
> the language syntax; syntax is just a means to an end.
>
I'm with Janwillem on this. I use a text editor. I have no problems
remembering function names, parameters, etc. And if I do, the only help
is only a click away.
I've tried other IDEs which provide code completion, etc. I find they
slow me down.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Tony Marston 2005-10-24, 3:55 am |
| I use PHPEdit from www.waterprrof.fr. It is free for personal use.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
"Janwillem Borleffs" <jw@jwscripts.com> wrote in message
news:435b837a$0$68802$dbd49001@news.euronet.nl...
> typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not using an IDE, EditPlus is all I need. But if I would want to use
> an IDE, I would go for Eclipse.
>
>
> JW
>
>
>
| |
| el_roachmeister@yahoo.com 2005-10-24, 3:55 am |
| I just use pico and google. For web software I find it easier to code
seperate scripts to do different things rather than mass everything
into one large script. Since each script is only a few hundred lines
and long and is independent of other scrtips, pico and google work fine
for me!
| |
| jussij@zeusedit.com 2005-10-24, 3:55 am |
| > but doesn't it take too much time for a novice like to remember
> all the members and functions or look them up in the manual?
Provided your manual is in an electronic format, for example
this one:
http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9
it should be easy enough to have your editor/ide integrate
with the manual, making it possible to search the manual
with a single key press and have the results displayed in
an instant.
> I think code completion and class view really helps
> people like me.
Zeus for Windows offers the speed of a text editor with IDE
features like class browsing, syntax highlighting, code
folding etc:
http://www.zeusedit.com/php.html
Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows
NOTE: Zeus is shareware (45 day trial).
| |
|
| Currently I'm using a text editor (http://www.textpad.com being my
editor of choice) and that's been fine for the majority of projects
I've worked on, but I do miss the convenience of a powerful IDE like
DevStudio.
PHPEd from NuSphere (http://www.nusphere.com/) looks pretty good -
built in debugger, profiler, SOAP client and stuff. The trial version
is sitting on my computer, I just haven't had time to look at it yet.
Has anyone used it, and what do they think?
Cheers
Gwaredd
http://red-dawg.co.uk
| |
|
| Using Zend Studio at the moment. IMO opinion there's nothing out there
other then Zend and perhaps NuSphere (which I haven't tried)for large
scale PHP development.
And anyone that stated in this thread that they don't need anything more
then textpad, obviously have not worked on a large scale PHP project.
When you have multiple people if not teams working on the same project,
its a bloody pain in the ass to have to look up what some tool, in some
other department called a fanction and what parameters it takes.
Thats only the start, IDEs (Zend) in this case provide me with several
other features:
1) Debugger, this is a must, being able to view objects / array /
variables run time, cuts down development time by at least 50% (probably
more). Instead of having to print_r() every second line to find out
whats going on.
2) Integratted PHPDoc, those of you who came out with guns blazing
saying TextPad is all I need ra.. ra.. ra.. May not have the use for it,
but my team and I certainly do.
Integrated CVS, FTP, SFTP, Database browser, Table Browser (for most
db's including oracle 10g), Code analyser, profiler, watches,
breakpoints, projects, auto indentatio.
Thats just a few of the features that come to mind, yes Zend support is
really terrible... I mean really bad. But as far as large scale PHP
development goes you can't go past it. Yes, I understand that people
strugle with change, but you are prooving nothing to me saying that you
can do it all with TextPad. I used to be in the same shoes, sure you can
do it with TextPad, its only going to take you alot more time.
typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
> First of all, I'm an Asian and I need to input Japanese, Korean and so
> on. I've tried many PHP IDEs today, but almost non of them supported
> Unicode (UTF-8) file.
>
> I've found that the only Unicode support IDEs are DreamWeaver 8 and
> Zend PHP Studio.
>
> DreamWeaver provides full support for Unicode. However, DreamWeaver is
> a web editor rather than a PHP IDE. It only supports basic IntelliSense
> (or code completion) and doesn't have anything like a class view.
>
> Zend PHP Studio supports Unicode but have many problems. It couldn't
> display Korean when I set a Japanese font for the editor, and couldn't
> display Japanese when I set a Korean font for the editor. The most
> obvious problem is it's too slow. It provides really good support for
> coding like class view, debugging and advanced IntelliSense, but it's
> too slow for my PC.
>
> I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
> I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.
>
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-24, 7:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
> Using Zend Studio at the moment. IMO opinion there's nothing out there
> other then Zend and perhaps NuSphere (which I haven't tried)for large
> scale PHP development.
>
> And anyone that stated in this thread that they don't need anything more
> then textpad, obviously have not worked on a large scale PHP project.
> When you have multiple people if not teams working on the same project,
> its a bloody pain in the ass to have to look up what some tool, in some
> other department called a fanction and what parameters it takes.
>
Please don't tell me what I have or have not worked on. I have been on
a couple of very large PHP projects, probably much larger than anything
you've been on (50+ programmers, several hundred K LOC).
No, it's NOT hard to determine what other departments have done. It's
called DOCUMENTATION.
> Thats only the start, IDEs (Zend) in this case provide me with several
> other features:
>
> 1) Debugger, this is a must, being able to view objects / array /
> variables run time, cuts down development time by at least 50% (probably
> more). Instead of having to print_r() every second line to find out
> whats going on.
>
> 2) Integratted PHPDoc, those of you who came out with guns blazing
> saying TextPad is all I need ra.. ra.. ra.. May not have the use for it,
> but my team and I certainly do.
>
> Integrated CVS, FTP, SFTP, Database browser, Table Browser (for most
> db's including oracle 10g), Code analyser, profiler, watches,
> breakpoints, projects, auto indentatio.
>
> Thats just a few of the features that come to mind, yes Zend support is
> really terrible... I mean really bad. But as far as large scale PHP
> development goes you can't go past it. Yes, I understand that people
> strugle with change, but you are prooving nothing to me saying that you
> can do it all with TextPad. I used to be in the same shoes, sure you can
> do it with TextPad, its only going to take you alot more time.
>
>
Sure, Zend has some advantages. Some or the people on the projects used
it. Others didn't.
I don't object to change. I tried Zend. The debugger is great. But
the IDE was too slow and limiting.
I'm not saying Zend or other IDE's are bad. They aren't. But what
works for one person does not work for every person. I work much faster
with a text editor than when using Zend. And most of our most
experienced programmers found the same. The newer programmers were more
likely to use Zend or some other IDE.
Interestingly enough, it was the most experienced programmers with their
text editors who invariably had the highest production and fewest errors.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
> So you don't use an IDE but just a text editor?
I use XEmacs...
> Well, many computer gurus did like that in the past, but doesn't it
> take too much time for a novice like to remember all the members and
> functions or look them up in the manual?
That's why god invented the web! ;-)
One window in XEmacs, one in Firefox at http://php.net... And one OS to
bind them all... :-)
> I think code completion and class view really helps people like me.
That might be nice but it doesn't beat dabbrev mode where one can not
only code complete function names but anything like variable names, etc.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
>
> Are you serious?? ;)
>
> Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
> hundreds/thousands of functions?
Of what benefit is there to be using functions that you don't know
intimately?!?
Perhaps it's clearest benefit is the realization that any such library
that has hundreds/thousands of functions is way to complex to be using!
> That's just a massive pain in the arse, and surely must slow you down
> considerably, especially when you only find you made a mistake at
> run-time... You might as well be programming in assembler if you like
> it raw! :)
Assembler would be quicker! Running that is. And yes some people still
program in assembler. http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm
> Admittedly, the benefit of class-views etc. must be somewhat limited
> for a dynamically-typed language like PHP. But in strongly-typed
> languages like C++, C# or Java that have *massive* APIs, intellisense
> and class-views etc. are an absolute god-send.
>
> IMO, being a good programmer is not about knowing the fine details of
> the language syntax; syntax is just a means to an end.
Being a good programmer is understanding the nature and workings of the
code you write and the code you use.
| |
| Gary L. Burnore 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| On 23 Oct 2005 09:00:05 -0700, typingcat@gmail.com top posted like a
newbie and wrote:
>So you don't use an IDE but just a text editor? Well, many computer
>gurus did like that in the past, but doesn't it take too much time for
>a novice like to remember all the members and functions or look them up
>in the manual? I think code completion and class view really helps
>people like me.
If by "people like me" you mean people who really don't want to take
the time to learn, then yeah, it helps. You're relying on whomever
wrote the code completion to "know what you meant to do". Hardly a
good thing.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
========================================
===================================
| |
|
| I recommend PHPDesigner 2005, and it's free.
http://www.mpsoftware.dk/
On 23 Oct 2005 02:32:48 -0700, typingcat@gmail.com wrote:
>First of all, I'm an Asian and I need to input Japanese, Korean and so
>on. I've tried many PHP IDEs today, but almost non of them supported
>Unicode (UTF-8) file.
>
>I've found that the only Unicode support IDEs are DreamWeaver 8 and
>Zend PHP Studio.
>
>DreamWeaver provides full support for Unicode. However, DreamWeaver is
>a web editor rather than a PHP IDE. It only supports basic IntelliSense
>(or code completion) and doesn't have anything like a class view.
>
>Zend PHP Studio supports Unicode but have many problems. It couldn't
>display Korean when I set a Japanese font for the editor, and couldn't
>display Japanese when I set a Korean font for the editor. The most
>obvious problem is it's too slow. It provides really good support for
>coding like class view, debugging and advanced IntelliSense, but it's
>too slow for my PC.
>
>I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
>I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.
| |
| Justin Koivisto 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Janwillem Borleffs said the following on 23/10/2005 17:06:
>
>
> Are you serious?? ;)
>
> Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
> hundreds/thousands of functions?
I for one have used a text editor for PHP coding for the better part of
5 years now. Recently, I started using Zend Studio. Sure all the code
completion and such is nice and *might* save you time when you are using
functions that aren't part of your daily routine, but if you have only
ever used IDEs and not memorized function names, syntax and return
cases, where would you be when you notice that something is very bad on
your site and you don't have access to your computer (or any computer)
with the IDE installed? I find that having had to memorize most of the
common functions and syntax has helped me tremendously for speed as well
as being able to handle a crisis if needed.
> That's just a massive pain in the arse, and surely must slow you down
> considerably, especially when you only find you made a mistake at
> run-time... You might as well be programming in assembler if you like it
> raw! :)
That's a stretch... it may be a pain for some, but anyone who started
programming C with vi knows what it is like. Assembler isn't even a
comparison to these top-level languages - especially when you're talking
perl and/or php where most of the function names document the code by
themselves...
> Admittedly, the benefit of class-views etc. must be somewhat limited for
> a dynamically-typed language like PHP. But in strongly-typed languages
> like C++, C# or Java that have *massive* APIs, intellisense and
> class-views etc. are an absolute god-send.
I find the class views (as in ZDE) to be great! I don't use them all the
time, but when I can look into one of my classes from long ago with a
class view and know exactly what type of value is returned without
searching the code itself... words can't explain.
That said, the decision to use an IDE or text editor for PHP completely
depends on the type of programmer you are. There are pros and cons for
both, and it is up to the developer to decide which route to go. I think
that this is a strength for languages like PHP 9or perl, c, Java, etc.)
- you don't have to have a specific IDE or route to develop your
application...
When's the last time you tried to create a VisualBasic project with a
text editor? How many times did you want to open a VB project in a text
editor to make a simple little change? Maybe not many in this group, but
I for one...
> IMO, being a good programmer is not about knowing the fine details of
> the language syntax; syntax is just a means to an end.
I wish I could remember who, but there was a quote that goes something
like: "Any monkey can be taught to learn a programming language - it's
just syntax. However, show me one monkey that has been taught
programming logic, and I'll give you a billion dollars."
--
Justin Koivisto, ZCE - justin@koivi.com
http://koivi.com
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| Justin Koivisto said the following on 24/10/2005 22:54:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> Sure all the code
> completion and such is nice and *might* save you time when you are using
> functions that aren't part of your daily routine, but if you have only
> ever used IDEs and not memorized function names, syntax and return
> cases, where would you be when you notice that something is very bad on
> your site and you don't have access to your computer (or any computer)
> with the IDE installed? I find that having had to memorize most of the
> common functions and syntax has helped me tremendously for speed as well
> as being able to handle a crisis if needed.
I see your point, but that only applies for interpreted/script-based
languages like PHP, VBScript, etc. For anything that requires a compiler
(e.g. C), the point is moot...
>
> That's a stretch... it may be a pain for some, but anyone who started
> programming C with vi knows what it is like. Assembler isn't even a
> comparison to these top-level languages - especially when you're talking
> perl and/or php where most of the function names document the code by
> themselves...
Yup, I was taking it to the logical extreme, I know! My point was along
the lines of "why forego modern technology that's there to make your
life easier?".
--
Oli
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-24, 6:56 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 24/10/2005 22:15:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
>
> Of what benefit is there to be using functions that you don't know
> intimately?!?
Sure, you should know what they do and what you're trying to achieve by
using them, but knowing whether it's xml_parser_create() or
XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or equally, whether it's
strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack, $needle)) is nothing but
an exercise in trivia.
Of course, you can flick to the online manual and find out, but that
must be at least 20 times slower (not to mention disruptive to the
coding "flow") than simply typing the first few letters into an IDE and
then pressing Tab for auto-complete (or the equivalent).
> Perhaps it's clearest benefit is the realization that any such library
> that has hundreds/thousands of functions is way to complex to be using!
Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily complex...
>
> Assembler would be quicker! Running that is. And yes some people still
> program in assembler. http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm
Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.
--
Oli
| |
|
|
LOL, oh please, the purpose of my post was not to proove that mine is
bigger then yours and vice verser. But it is evident from your
statements, that your views are very limited, and that all you are
trying to do is proove how great you are that you can code PHP in a text
editor. Look, congratulations, you've prooven it.
Furthermore you are not providing any real life examples to your
argument. Why is the IDE slow and limiting? You also completely ignored
my argument on run time debugging, simple walking over your inline
print_r()'s.
I've been in the industry for over 10 years, but that is not the point
and to be honest, every company/university I walked into. Was using
TextPad, but after I showed them how to use Zend non of them went back
to a simple Text editor. It improves productivity by at least 75%.
Yet, you argument states, and I quote:
"Interestingly enough, it was the most experienced programmers with
their text editors who invariably had the highest production and fewest
errors."
That statement alone in my opionion reinforces the fact that you haven't
even taken the time to try to develop something in Zend. Because if you
put 2 identical developers next to each other, one with Zend the other
with TextPad, and give them the same task. The one with Zend is going to
be sipping margaritas in the Bahamas, by the time your *old school* guys
reaches the unit testing phase.
There is a reason that people who founded / were strongly involved in
the development of PHP it self started Zend - the company. There is a
reason that they charge quete a large sum for their software. Because
they know its good, they know that people will earn more money using it
then they will pay for it.
And honestly I hate to get personal, and compare each other's e-penises.
But I'm sure your next reply will lack any indepth thought or industry
insight. It will simply say, I've worked on blah blah, and the person
with TextPad was so much quicker, because the memory load on his machine
was alot lower, due to TextPad using so few resources... blah blah.
Ahh... don't make me laught.
> Please don't tell me what I have or have not worked on. I have been on
> a couple of very large PHP projects, probably much larger than anything
> you've been on (50+ programmers, several hundred K LOC).
> No, it's NOT hard to determine what other departments have done. It's
> called DOCUMENTATION.
>
>
> Sure, Zend has some advantages. Some or the people on the projects used
> it. Others didn't.
>
> I don't object to change. I tried Zend. The debugger is great. But
> the IDE was too slow and limiting.
>
> I'm not saying Zend or other IDE's are bad. They aren't. But what
> works for one person does not work for every person. I work much faster
> with a text editor than when using Zend. And most of our most
> experienced programmers found the same. The newer programmers were more
> likely to use Zend or some other IDE.
>
> Interestingly enough, it was the most experienced programmers with their
> text editors who invariably had the highest production and fewest errors.
>
>
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
>
> LOL, oh please, the purpose of my post was not to proove that mine is
> bigger then yours and vice verser. But it is evident from your
> statements, that your views are very limited, and that all you are
> trying to do is proove how great you are that you can code PHP in a text
> editor. Look, congratulations, you've prooven it.
>
This is the farthest from the truth I've ever heard. I was responding
to your statement:
"And anyone that stated in this thread that they don't need anything
more then textpad, obviously have not worked on a large scale PHP
project...."
This statement is completely asinine. You have NO idea what projects I
or most other people on this newsgroup have worked on.
> Furthermore you are not providing any real life examples to your
> argument. Why is the IDE slow and limiting? You also completely ignored
> my argument on run time debugging, simple walking over your inline
> print_r()'s.
>
No, I don't have to. It works for me.
However - I'm typically thinking several characters or words ahead of
what I'm writing. And auto-completion, popup assists, etc. are a huge
distraction to me. Amongst other things.
Debugging is nice, I do admit. But I don't need to WRITE my code in an
IDE to be able to DEBUG it. I typically get along fine with echo,
print_r, etc. But I know how to use a debugger when I need it.
> I've been in the industry for over 10 years, but that is not the point
> and to be honest, every company/university I walked into. Was using
> TextPad, but after I showed them how to use Zend non of them went back
> to a simple Text editor. It improves productivity by at least 75%.
>
Damn - another newcomer. I've got almost 30 years of seniority on you.
And yes, it does improve productivity of programmers who don't know what
they're doing, don't understand the language and/or don't want to
remember the functions. I find it quite easy to remember function names
and parms - and when I do need to look something up, the online help is
a click away.
> Yet, you argument states, and I quote:
>
> "Interestingly enough, it was the most experienced programmers with
> their text editors who invariably had the highest production and fewest
> errors."
>
> That statement alone in my opionion reinforces the fact that you haven't
> even taken the time to try to develop something in Zend. Because if you
> put 2 identical developers next to each other, one with Zend the other
> with TextPad, and give them the same task. The one with Zend is going to
> be sipping margaritas in the Bahamas, by the time your *old school* guys
> reaches the unit testing phase.
>
To repeat - I HAVE used Zend and other IDE's. And I'll take you on ANY
DAY. You don't have a leg to stand on with your limited experience.
> There is a reason that people who founded / were strongly involved in
> the development of PHP it self started Zend - the company. There is a
> reason that they charge quete a large sum for their software. Because
> they know its good, they know that people will earn more money using it
> then they will pay for it.
>
Yep, it's good for the newbie and those who don't want to bother to
learn the language, functions, etc.
> And honestly I hate to get personal, and compare each other's e-penises.
> But I'm sure your next reply will lack any indepth thought or industry
> insight. It will simply say, I've worked on blah blah, and the person
> with TextPad was so much quicker, because the memory load on his machine
> was alot lower, due to TextPad using so few resources... blah blah.
>
Yep, just like any newbie. Think they know everything.
My point is - NO IDE IS RIGHT FOR EVERYONE! You're trying to make EVERY
PROGRAMMER fit into the same mold. WE DON'T!
> Ahh... don't make me laught.
>
Why not? Your post was the biggest laugh I had all day.
And don't top post.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| jussij@zeusedit.com 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| > When you have multiple people if not teams working on the
> same project, its a bloody pain in the ass to have to look
> up what some tool, in some other department called a fanction
> and what parameters it takes.
One option is to use the ctags utility to create a tags database,
allowing searches like this to be done in a matter of seconds and
many text editors have the ability to search tag files.
A second option would be to integrate the doxygen documentation
utility into some sort of nightly build process. This would
create for you a fully indexable list of the functions and
variables that make up your project.
This list could be navigated using nothing but a standard web
browser, but you could also convert the HTML into something
like a HtmlHelp file. That then makes it possible to search
you index from within your favourite text editors.
Zeus integrates to both of these tools and the searching is
hardly painful. I would suggest that in some cases it might
even be faster than your IDE ;)
Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows IDE
http://www.zeusedit.com
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
Oh, and one other thing. I've been training programmers longer than
you've been a programmer. My clients have included a fair percentage of
the Fortune 500 companies, as well as smaller companies.
And I repeat - IDE'S ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE!
I've seen vi programmers outperform ANYTHING someone using TextPad or
ANY other Windows programs - including IDE's - does. And no, I'm not
that good. But these guys (and gals) are.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 24/10/2005 22:15:
>
>
> Sure, you should know what they do and what you're trying to achieve
> by using them, but knowing whether it's xml_parser_create() or
> XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or equally, whether it's
> strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack, $needle)) is nothing
> but an exercise in trivia.
No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...
> Of course, you can flick to the online manual and find out, but that
> must be at least 20 times slower (not to mention disruptive to the
> coding "flow") than simply typing the first few letters into an IDE
> and then pressing Tab for auto-complete (or the equivalent).
Perhaps - but it ain't worth losing all of the functionality and
flexibility of XEmacs - at least not to me...
>
> Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily complex...
I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word
"necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word "unnecessarily".
>
> Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.
Well if you read the page you would see he write *all* of his
applications in assembly...
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Justin Koivisto said the following on 24/10/2005 22:54:
>
>
> I see your point, but that only applies for interpreted/script-based
> languages like PHP, VBScript, etc. For anything that requires a
> compiler (e.g. C), the point is moot...
Sorry but that does not compute! Why is the presence of a compiler
dictate the need for an IDE? Both the interpreted and compiled based
languages can suffer from the same problem mentioned above.
>
> Yup, I was taking it to the logical extreme, I know! My point was
> along the lines of "why forego modern technology that's there to make
> your life easier?".
The same reason why teenagers always use calculators and have been
losing the ability to compute problems, do arithmetic without a
calculator and to, by extension, think logically. Just because there's a
modern do hickey for something doesn't mean that you can nor should give
up understanding of what's going on under the hood and get your hands
dirty every now and then. And as is often the case, the true
professionals, the ones who are often better or the best, do things the
old fashioned way. Why is that? And who do you want to be?
| |
|
| true what they say about old dogs not being able to learn new tricks, I
see you have gottn quete worked up over ths issue, ok... IDEs are not
for everyone. Keep training people to use TextPad and vi.
Infact you can do anything you like, talking to you is like talking to a
brick wall, an old brick wall. To be honest I got better things to do.
Infact this is exactly the same as when I asked about shared memory
allocation I think you were also the first fag to jump in and proove
that you know everything about anything. And that your 50 years
experience gives you an edge some how. IT&T is moving way to quick for
someone to go and claim just because they written code in assembler or
something else prehistoric that they know better.
And for your argument that you are training people for so many years, I
don't give a flying shit who you train. Not all my lecture's were good.
And perhaps you are quete average as well. After all marketing does have
a large roll in *selling* education.
So I'll repeat, I've worked in the commerce sector, now I am in
education my self. And all the people over the 10 years who I showed
Zend. And statisticly I'm sure that some of those programmers would have
been good. Have all had a positive response about Zend. And I'm sure are
using it to this day.
Anyway, my point is... if you are programming a PHP - with OO structure,
obstraction layers. Zend is the way to go. That is all, you can argue
until you are blue in the face that is not, I've used both approaches,
and I can see the plain difference in department now. Right this second.
Not 10-20 years ago. But Now.
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Ramon wrote:
>
> Oh, and one other thing. I've been training programmers longer than
> you've been a programmer. My clients have included a fair percentage of
> the Fortune 500 companies, as well as smaller companies.
>
> And I repeat - IDE'S ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE!
>
> I've seen vi programmers outperform ANYTHING someone using TextPad or
> ANY other Windows programs - including IDE's - does. And no, I'm not
> that good. But these guys (and gals) are.
>
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 02:23:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...
I repeat my original point - where's the benefit in learning the precise
syntax for thousands of functions, especially custom functions that may
not be documented, or unfamiliar libraries?
It doesn't make one a better programmer (in the sense of understanding
how to design and construct functional, elegant programs and code), and
is error-prone (in the sense that you have to wait until run-time to
spot your mistakes that would otherwise have been picked up by syntax
highlighting, or wouldn't have been there in the first place due to
autocompletion).
Just because, for a trivial example, I can't remember whether it's
imagejpeg($source, $filename, $quality) or imagejpeg($filename,
$quality, $source) has no bearing on my understanding of what that
function does or why I want to use it...
Don't get me wrong though, if someone finds writing code easier in
TextPad (or whatever) easier, then I'm not going to dispute that. I just
find it a little tricky to understand.
>
> I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word
> "necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word "unnecessarily".
Depends. Larger APIs ultimately afford you greater flexibility. You
probably couldn't shrink, for example, the Windows or Java APIs without
losing functionality and/or flexibility.
>
> Well if you read the page you would see he write *all* of his
> applications in assembly...
Yeah, I noticed that. IMO, that's a pointless waste of time, unless he's
doing it purely for the academic exercise. :)
--
Oli
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 02:29:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry but that does not compute! Why is the presence of a compiler
> dictate the need for an IDE? Both the interpreted and compiled based
> languages can suffer from the same problem mentioned above.
I was refuting the idea that you could fix code errors on any PC without
"specialist" tools. That only applies for script-based languages, and
therefore isn't a general rule. Wasn't very clear originally, I admit!
>
> The same reason why teenagers always use calculators and have been
> losing the ability to compute problems, do arithmetic without a
> calculator and to, by extension, think logically. Just because there's a
> modern do hickey for something doesn't mean that you can nor should give
> up understanding of what's going on under the hood and get your hands
> dirty every now and then.
I think there's a difference between IDEs and the calculator example. By
using a calculator to do your sums, it can act as a replacement for
knowing *how* to calculate (I agree, BTW ;) ). Using an IDE to remind
you of function syntax, for example, can't act as a replacement for
knowing *how* to construct a program.
In the case of the IDE, it's not hiding anything "under the hood"
(FrontPage excepted).
Anyway, even intelligent professional mathematicians wouldn't forego a
calculator if they were asked to calculate something like
123.4528*log(3.573). They'd use the calculator because it makes their
life easier and gets the job done; that doesn't imply that they don't
understand multiplication or logarithms.
--
Oli
| |
|
| Exactly correct. I've got nothing to proove, I just want to produce
hight quality code, quickly. I still haven't seen one cohisive argument
against, other then: people can do it quicker in a text editor.
Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 02:29:
>
>
>
> I was refuting the idea that you could fix code errors on any PC without
> "specialist" tools. That only applies for script-based languages, and
> therefore isn't a general rule. Wasn't very clear originally, I admit!
>
>
>
>
> I think there's a difference between IDEs and the calculator example. By
> using a calculator to do your sums, it can act as a replacement for
> knowing *how* to calculate (I agree, BTW ;) ). Using an IDE to remind
> you of function syntax, for example, can't act as a replacement for
> knowing *how* to construct a program.
>
> In the case of the IDE, it's not hiding anything "under the hood"
> (FrontPage excepted).
>
> Anyway, even intelligent professional mathematicians wouldn't forego a
> calculator if they were asked to calculate something like
> 123.4528*log(3.573). They'd use the calculator because it makes their
> life easier and gets the job done; that doesn't imply that they don't
> understand multiplication or logarithms.
>
>
>
>
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
> true what they say about old dogs not being able to learn new tricks, I
> see you have gottn quete worked up over ths issue, ok... IDEs are not
> for everyone. Keep training people to use TextPad and vi.
>
First of all, I learn a lot of "new tricks". As an instructor, I have
to know MORE than the students. And in the past few years I've learned
PHP, Javascript and Java. This is on top of my two main languages, C
and C++.
Second, it's not your position to tell me what my emotions are, and I
would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing to. I am not worked
up over this.
And, BTW, it has been scientifically proven you *can* teach an old dog
new tricks. They learn quite well.
> Infact you can do anything you like, talking to you is like talking to a
> brick wall, an old brick wall. To be honest I got better things to do.
>
Not in the least.
Your statement is that any programmer who doesn't use an IDE such as
ZEND isn't as productive as one who does.
My statement is that an IDE is NOT for everyone. Some people do even
better by not using one.
Let's see - you try to fit everyone into one mold. I try and make the
mold to fit each individual. Who's a brick wall?
> Infact this is exactly the same as when I asked about shared memory
> allocation I think you were also the first fag to jump in and proove
> that you know everything about anything. And that your 50 years
> experience gives you an edge some how. IT&T is moving way to quick for
> someone to go and claim just because they written code in assembler or
> something else prehistoric that they know better.
>
Could be. I am quite willing to correct misstatements by some new guy
who thinks he's an "expert".
> And for your argument that you are training people for so many years, I
> don't give a flying shit who you train. Not all my lecture's were good.
> And perhaps you are quete average as well. After all marketing does have
> a large roll in *selling* education.
>
And I don't give a flying shit what you think.
Let me clue you - training in the corporate world is MUCH different than
in a university. For instance - I have to fit the equivalent of a
semester into one w . That means teaching C, C++, or Java from the
ground up.
Every course has critiques of both the course material and the trainer.
And if I don't do a good job, they find someone else for the next course.
But I keep getting rehired.
> So I'll repeat, I've worked in the commerce sector, now I am in
> education my self. And all the people over the 10 years who I showed
> Zend. And statisticly I'm sure that some of those programmers would have
> been good. Have all had a positive response about Zend. And I'm sure are
> using it to this day.
>
Gee, you work for a community college? Or are you one of those "not so
good" lecturers?
> Anyway, my point is... if you are programming a PHP - with OO structure,
> obstraction layers. Zend is the way to go. That is all, you can argue
> until you are blue in the face that is not, I've used both approaches,
> and I can see the plain difference in department now. Right this second.
> Not 10-20 years ago. But Now.
>
It is ONE way to go. Not the ONLY WAY.
And btw - I really don't think much of anyone who can't be bothered to
follow newsgroup standards. One of the standards for this newsgoup does
NOT include top posting.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
> true what they say about old dogs not being able to learn new tricks,
> I see you have gottn quete worked up over ths issue, ok... IDEs are
> not for everyone. Keep training people to use TextPad and vi.
An "old dog" doesn't need new tricks when the old tricks work just fine.
Just because something is new does not mean that it's better.
> Infact you can do anything you like, talking to you is like talking to
> a brick wall, an old brick wall. To be honest I got better things to do.
I see you had time to waste here responding...
> Infact this is exactly the same as when I asked about shared memory
> allocation I think you were also the first fag to jump in and proove
> that you know everything about anything. And that your 50 years
> experience gives you an edge some how. IT&T is moving way to quick for
> someone to go and claim just because they written code in assembler or
> something else prehistoric that they know better.
At least he can spell... ;-)
And he doesn't need to "proove" it!
> And for your argument that you are training people for so many years,
> I don't give a flying shit who you train. Not all my lecture's were
> good. And perhaps you are quete average as well. After all marketing
> does have a large roll in *selling* education.
But the teachers are not usually the ones selling education - it's the
marketers that do that...
> So I'll repeat, I've worked in the commerce sector, now I am in
> education my self. And all the people over the 10 years who I showed
> Zend. And statisticly I'm sure that some of those programmers would
> have been good. Have all had a positive response about Zend. And I'm
> sure are using it to this day.
A vast majority of people eat at McDonalds. That doesn't mean that it's
good food...
> Anyway, my point is... if you are programming a PHP - with OO
> structure, obstraction layers. Zend is the way to go. That is all, you
> can argue until you are blue in the face that is not, I've used both
> approaches, and I can see the plain difference in department now.
> Right this second. Not 10-20 years ago. But Now.
Does nothing to negate the fact that IDEs may be fine for some people,
but not everybody...
| |
|
| And in the past few years I've learned PHP
Key sentence I believe.
> Second, it's not your position to tell me what my emotions are, and I
> would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing to. I am not worked
> up over this.
Wish granted.
> And, BTW, it has been scientifically proven you *can* teach an old dog
> new tricks. They learn quite well.
What with a 5 min attention span? Sure repetition is they key, I'll try
to repeat my self more often.
> Not in the least.
>
> Your statement is that any programmer who doesn't use an IDE such as
> ZEND isn't as productive as one who does.
On large scale projects *YES*.
> My statement is that an IDE is NOT for everyone. Some people do even
> better by not using one.
Very hard to belive, not sure how many people would use a texteditor
alternative to .NET tech.
> Let's see - you try to fit everyone into one mold. I try and make the
> mold to fit each individual. Who's a brick wall?
I'm not trying to fit anyone into anything, it is my personal opinion to
which I am entitled.
> Could be. I am quite willing to correct misstatements by some new guy
> who thinks he's an "expert".
There are quete a few people who are of the same opinion in this thread
alone. They are all *new guys*.
> And I don't give a flying shit what you think.
>
> Let me clue you - training in the corporate world is MUCH different than
> in a university. For instance - I have to fit the equivalent of a
> semester into one w. That means teaching C, C++, or Java from the
> ground up.
Good, I am glad that we have come to an understanding at least on this.
If you don't give a shit, don't correct me or insult me, and go hide in
the hole you crawled out of. The OP asked for an opionion, which I gave
who gave you the write to critises that? XXXXing armchair bandit.
> Every course has critiques of both the course material and the trainer.
> And if I don't do a good job, they find someone else for the next course.
You seem to ahve alot of time on your hands atm, not many contracts
going your way. BL.
> Gee, you work for a community college? Or are you one of those "not so
> good" lecturers?
No, actually Information Technology Services for a major reasearch based
University. 2 degrees, 1 in comp. science (australia), and 1 in Moscow's
MGU also comp. science, not that your arrogence would allow you to know
what that is.
> It is ONE way to go. Not the ONLY WAY.
CBF repeating again, even though I do realise taht repetition is
paramount here. As old dogs do... learn... well...
> follow newsgroup standards. One of the standards for this newsgoup does
> NOT include top posting.
That is just  . You don't think much of me? :) My confidence is shattered.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
>
> I repeat my original point - where's the benefit in learning the
> precise syntax for thousands of functions, especially custom functions
> that may not be documented, or unfamiliar libraries?
And I will repeat mine: What good is it *not *to be familar with the
function call in question?
And you shouldn't have thousands of functions! If you got that much then
you should break things into smaller , more manageable pieces.
> It doesn't make one a better programmer (in the sense of understanding
> how to design and construct functional, elegant programs and code),
Sure it does.
> and is error-prone (in the sense that you have to wait until run-time
> to spot your mistakes that would otherwise have been picked up by
> syntax highlighting, or wouldn't have been there in the first place
> due to autocompletion).
Who says that XEmacs, for example, doesn't do syntax highlighting?!?
And no you don't *have* to wait until run-time! You could always look it
up if you are unsure about it *before* you run it!
> Just because, for a trivial example, I can't remember whether it's
> imagejpeg($source, $filename, $quality) or imagejpeg($filename,
> $quality, $source) has no bearing on my understanding of what that
> function does or why I want to use it...
Sorry you can't remember the functions that you use.
> Don't get me wrong though, if someone finds writing code easier in
> TextPad (or whatever) easier, then I'm not going to dispute that. I
> just find it a little tricky to understand.
That's cause you're thinking of TextPad. I've never used TextPad...
I find it much better to use a good editor, a good terminal emulator, a
good language (or two) with a good debugger and I have specific tools
for each task. Each are good at what they do and I don't have to bother
loading some monolithic application that tries to be the jack of all
trades while mastering none of them... That is the Unix philosophy and
it has been for decades - and for good reason!
>
> Depends. Larger APIs ultimately afford you greater flexibility. You
> probably couldn't shrink, for example, the Windows or Java APIs
> without losing functionality and/or flexibility.
How many applications do you write that actually use more than a handful
of those APIs? And the Windows and Java APIs are not great examples of
well engineered and well thought out APIs, IMHO...
>
> Yeah, I noticed that. IMO, that's a pointless waste of time, unless
> he's doing it purely for the academic exercise. :)
You would argue that writing things efficiently is a pointless waste of
time. That speaks more about you than it does about me. Granted, I don't
write tight assembly code for my apps but I sure know enough to
appreciate somebody who does instead of calling his work pointless!
| |
|
| > At least he can spell... ;-)
>
> And he doesn't need to "proove" it!
haha, well sure, you got me there, english isnt my first language, but I
can speak & write 4 languages fluently, how many can you? ;)
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-24, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 02:29:
>
>
> I was refuting the idea that you could fix code errors on any PC
> without "specialist" tools. That only applies for script-based
> languages, and therefore isn't a general rule. Wasn't very clear
> originally, I admit!
Sorry, still doesn't compute. What stops one from logging into a system
and tweaking and recompiling say a C program? Ah are you locked into MS
VisualStudio? Well lookee here! Another monolithic IDE application!
Which, of course, points to another reason why IDEs are indeed bad. It
seems you are admitting that without them you cannot work!
On the contrary in the, ahem, old way of doing things you simply use a
plain text editor to edit a file or a makefile, rebuild the app and your
on your way! Even from a telnet session from across the world. No need
for an IDE. No dependence on the IDE. Job completed! Even in C or some
other 3rd generation language (speaking of old school).
You see it starts off with "Gee this is  because it colors the
syntax. And look here it bring up the relevant documentation! And auto
completes. Cool, , . And I can drag and drop my files into this
project thingy and not have to think about make files" then progresses
to the point where, without the monolithic IDE application and your
"environment" you effectively can't work - and that's bad!
>
> I think there's a difference between IDEs and the calculator example.
> By using a calculator to do your sums, it can act as a replacement for
> knowing *how* to calculate (I agree, BTW ;) ). Using an IDE to remind
> you of function syntax, for example, can't act as a replacement for
> knowing *how* to construct a program.
I beg to differ. Often IDEs implement concepts of projects and other
things that are not only designed to work from the IDE, but can't work
at all unless you are in the IDE. You loose the concept of how to
construct the program outside of the context of the IDE itself. In fact,
often you can't do it at all. And I believe they also dumb down the
concept of knowing how to program too, just like they do for calculators
and math...
> In the case of the IDE, it's not hiding anything "under the hood"
> (FrontPage excepted).
I disagree. Take a sizable application that you use your IDE for and
take it out of the IDE. I bet you'll be surprised how it's not an easy
task to do...
> Anyway, even intelligent professional mathematicians wouldn't forego a
> calculator if they were asked to calculate something like
> 123.4528*log(3.573). They'd use the calculator because it makes their
> life easier and gets the job done; that doesn't imply that they don't
> understand multiplication or logarithms.
Yes, but they understand the concept behind the math involved. And, if
push came to shove, they could calculate that without the calculator...
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
>
> On large scale projects *YES*.
>
That was not your statement. Let me quote you (again): "And anyone that
stated in this thread that they don't need anything more then textpad,
obviously have not worked on a large scale PHP project. "
You did NOT say you must use one on a large scale project. You said
"ANY PROGRAMMER"...
>
>
> Very hard to belive, not sure how many people would use a texteditor
> alternative to .NET tech.
>
Trying to change the subject again? But yes, there are people out there
who do.
>
>
> I'm not trying to fit anyone into anything, it is my personal opinion to
> which I am entitled.
>
Yes, and you're saying everyone should use an IDE.
>
>
>
> There are quete a few people who are of the same opinion in this thread
> alone. They are all *new guys*.
>
And you're the one who thinks he's an expert.
>
>
> Good, I am glad that we have come to an understanding at least on this.
> If you don't give a shit, don't correct me or insult me, and go hide in
> the hole you crawled out of. The OP asked for an opionion, which I gave
> who gave you the write to critises that? XXXXing armchair bandit.
>
I said I don't give a shit what *YOU* think. I do care when you try to
snow other programmers with your BS.
>
>
> You seem to ahve alot of time on your hands atm, not many contracts
> going your way. BL.
Actually, I have more work than I want. I've had to subcontract some of
it out and/or turn some work down. But it still leaves me with
sufficient time to be on usenet. I'm doing it from my laptop in bed
right now, for instance.
>
>
>
> No, actually Information Technology Services for a major reasearch based
> University. 2 degrees, 1 in comp. science (australia), and 1 in Moscow's
> MGU also comp. science, not that your arrogence would allow you to know
> what that is.
>
Ah, "Education". And yes, I do know what it is. Let me clue you -
Universities are nothing like the real world!
>
>
>
> CBF repeating again, even though I do realise taht repetition is
> paramount here. As old dogs do... learn... well...
>
And maybe you will learn one day.
>
>
> That is just . You don't think much of me? :) My confidence is
> shattered.
At least you didn't top post. You get one point for that.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| > That was not your statement. Let me quote you (again): "And anyone that
> stated in this thread that they don't need anything more then textpad,
> obviously have not worked on a large scale PHP project. "
> You did NOT say you must use one on a large scale project. You said
> "ANY PROGRAMMER"...
Sorry let me rephrase if you are unable to read between the lines. I
mean in theory you could do anything with notepad, it is not very
effective on a large scale project. Any yes... PHP programmer, that
claims that a simple text editor can be effective on a *LARGE* scale PHP
project, using Object Orientated Architecture, and claims that there
will be no benefit granted to him/her and/or the project by utilizing a
IDE is disillusioned.
>
> Trying to change the subject again? But yes, there are people out there
> who do.
See what I mean. Yondu just took a stand, a you are going to stand by it
no matter what :) I guess it deserves some respect.
> Yes, and you're saying everyone should use an IDE.
On a large PHP project yes, would make their life, and everyone elses
life alot easier. They just need to see the light. Thing is that I've
had this argument countless times, with countless individuals, both old
and young, and they all defend what is theirs :) A routine.
> Ah, "Education". And yes, I do know what it is. Let me clue you -
> Universities are nothing like the real world!
What gave you the idea that I worked all my life in a university. I've
worked for many company & personal clients of my own. I've developed
statistical marketing solutions, that would blow you away. That are used
to this day by major clothing apparell chains world wide. I'm not
talking 2 or 3 stores, I'm talking hundreds and hundreds nation wide.
All of these where as *real world* as it gets. I've only gotten into the
"education* industry recently, further more I do not teach programming,
nor have I held an educational position in my career.
> And maybe you will learn one day.
I am very willing to learn, and I have mastered the art of texteditor &
VI programming a long time ago. And frankly on a large project
interfacing a dozen other large systems, it would be suicide to tred
that path. Well not really suicide, but project management would become
unworkable.
> At least you didn't top post. You get one point for that.
Thanks, thanks for that. I am glad I was able to simplify your life. -
That sounds familiar ;)
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
> haha, well sure, you got me there, english isnt my first language, but
> I can speak & write 4 languages fluently, how many can you? ;)
Are you counting computer languages! ;-)
Why does it matter if one can speak multiple languages anyway! I speak
'merican! That's all that matters! :-P
--
If knees were backwards, what would chairs look like?
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
>
> Sorry let me rephrase if you are unable to read between the lines.
Instead of the rephrasing or reading between the lines why not resort to
clearly expressing yourself. No wonder you need a sophisticated IDE to
fill in the blanks.
> I mean in theory you could do anything with notepad, it is not very
> effective on a large scale project. Any yes... PHP programmer, that
> claims that a simple text editor can be effective on a *LARGE* scale
> PHP project, using Object Orientated Architecture, and claims that
> there will be no benefit granted to him/her and/or the project by
> utilizing a IDE is disillusioned.
In your humble opinion. You do understand what the word opinion is don't
you. Because you have offered no empirical evidence for this claim...
>
> On a large PHP project yes, would make their life, and everyone elses
> life alot easier.
I fail to see how my life would get easier if I have to spend lots of
time learning how somebody's IDE is supposed to work.
> They just need to see the light.
Sounds religious! Ick!
> Thing is that I've had this argument countless times, with countless
> individuals, both old and young, and they all defend what is theirs :)
> A routine.
That should tell you something. Like perhaps maybe you're not right. Or,
gentler, that others hold differing opinions.
I use Jinzora (http://jinzora.org) on my web site. It's a fairly complex
PHP application. It's also done by two people. I doubt that they use an
IDE (I will ask...).
--
As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
>
> Very hard to belive, not sure how many people would use a texteditor
> alternative to .NET tech.
Personally I wouldn't touch .NET with a 10 foot pole! It's, from what I
hear, the ultimate in unnecessary complication.
Listen, while function completion, syntax highlighting and the like are
, I spend far more of my time doing basic editing than just function
calls or function call headers. Editing of characters, lines, code - my
code, is what is done more often. While an IDE might gain me some
convenience in the areas of function call completion it's not where I
spend the majority of my time. Having to sit and learn all the
functionality, and worse yet, lose of functionality, in plain text
editing would be a major productivity hit to me.
Additionally, as a scripter and system admin, I deal in a plethora of
languages, including, but not limited to, PHP, Perl, Bash, Awk, HTML,
sed, Visual Basic (Yes unfortunately), etc. XEmacs handles all of them
with ease and similarity, whereas an IDE geared toward PHP probably
wouldn't handle Bash very easily. And having, installing, configuring,
learning and keeping up to day 5 different IDEs for 5 different
scripting languages was never something I've aspired to do...
>
> I'm not trying to fit anyone into anything, it is my personal opinion
> to which I am entitled.
You are as entitled to your opinion as we are to ours...
>
> There are quete a few people who are of the same opinion in this
> thread alone. They are all *new guys*.
Again, McDonalds food is popular - it ain't, however, good food...
>
> Good, I am glad that we have come to an understanding at least on
> this. If you don't give a shit, don't correct me or insult me, and go
> hide in the hole you crawled out of. The OP asked for an opionion,
> which I gave who gave you the write to critises that? XXXXing armchair
> bandit.
As you say, is he not also entitled to his opinion? (As am I?)
--
I hit the CTRL key but I'm still not in control!
| |
|
| > Instead of the rephrasing or reading between the lines why not resort to
> clearly expressing yourself. No wonder you need a sophisticated IDE to
> fill in the blanks.
I expressed my self very clearly the first time round, some people just
need a little more explanation and/or persuasion.
>
>
> In your humble opinion. You do understand what the word opinion is don't
> you. Because you have offered no empirical evidence for this claim...
>
Well, yes it is, and I have provided evidence, have a browse through
some earlier posts.
> I fail to see how my life would get easier if I have to spend lots of
> time learning how somebody's IDE is supposed to work.
That statement alone sums up your attitude, and attitudes of people like
you. Somebodies IDE... So why did you learn and are using someone's OS?
At least if you trying to argue, make a frail attempt to have one, an
argument that is. The above is just pathetic.
>
>
>
> Sounds religious! Ick!
O.. k.. what are you 12?
>
>
> That should tell you something. Like perhaps maybe you're not right. Or,
> gentler, that others hold differing opinions.
No it tells me one thing, which I've allways known to be true, people
are stubborn and are afraid of change.
>
> I use Jinzora (http://jinzora.org) on my web site. It's a fairly complex
> PHP application. It's also done by two people. I doubt that they use an
> IDE (I will ask...).
Sure, why don't you ask them what PHP framework they used, what year
they developed it in? How many years it took em? What would make their
life easier? And then see if a IDE feature fits that description, and
I'm sure you will find your answer.
Comeon man at least Jerry had some semi valid arguments based on the
real world, you are talking completely out of your ass. I'm not even
going to start on the personal attacks you made on my spelling and
grammar. Considering with the internet, global villege etc. You would
think people can see past these differences. Like not being able to
speak or write flawlessly. But hey, from the above it is evident you are
not worth the chair you are sitting on.
So, I'll refrain from correspondance in your direction, and I'd like to
ask you that you refrain from any in mine. And let my argument with
Jerry continue without your petty bullshit.
That is all. Thanks.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
> I expressed my self very clearly the first time round, some people
> just need a little more explanation and/or persuasion.
Demonstrably false. As has been quoted you said "all programmers" yet
later you clarify that to mean something else. You are not being clear
in your expression if you have to change "all programmers" to something
else. It is a miscommunication on your part, plain and simple.
>
> Well, yes it is, and I have provided evidence, have a browse through
> some earlier posts.
I've been reading the thread. You've offered your opinion. You have not
presented any qualitative data.
>
> That statement alone sums up your attitude, and attitudes of people
> like you. Somebodies IDE...
No it sums up reality! Or are you claiming it's somehow not reality that
there would be a learning curve to adjust to some new IDE?
> So why did you learn and are using someone's OS?
That sir is irrelevant! I've already learned somebody's OS (Actually
I've learned quite a few). And, more to the point, I've spent the time
to learn a particular editor which suits me quite well. As such, if you
want to sell your idea, and indeed you are selling your idea of using
yet another tool that I will have to learn, you need to provide
justification. Your justification is that it helps you with some things.
My contentions are 1) it ain't that much of a help and 2) it requires
more effort than I deem worthwhile to learn how to do old things a new
way with very little potential that there will be much gain in
productivity of every day things that I do way more than just complete
function calls. In fact I know that I'll lose lots of functionality that
my current editor provides that this new IDE just will not provide.
> At least if you trying to argue, make a frail attempt to have one, an
> argument that is. The above is just pathetic.
It's reality. Face it instead of run away from it by trying to dismiss
it. People will not change their habits unless they perceive an
advantage in doing so. You've presented your weak case as to why you
think it's beneficial. Are you really that surprised that some may
disagree with your opinion?
>
> O.. k.. what are you 12?
Nope. I'm 45. But that's funny because that's exactly what I think when
I talk to religious types. It's the same old bullshit "I know better
than you. You will eventually see the light". As an atheist I say "Yeah
I saw that light a long time ago and perhaps at some time in the future
you'll see the light I'm now seeing". Same is true for IDEs. Same
religious like argument...
>
> No it tells me one thing, which I've allways known to be true, people
> are stubborn and are afraid of change.
You're barking up the wrong tree here pal. I have no problem with
change. I do have a problem with change with little gain however. Look,
if all I did was PHP coding in large projects you'd perhaps have a
point. In fact I'd probably be using a PHP based IDE. But that's not
what I do. I code in many different languages and quite frankly having a
specialized IDE for each language would be way too much of a bother than
be considered any sort of productivity gain to me. IOW it wouldn't bring
me, in particular, any benefit. Is that really so difficult to
understand? That not everybody thinks like you nor wants to have your
environment? Pure arrogance on your part!
>
> Sure, why don't you ask them what PHP framework they used, what year
> they developed it in?
PHP framework they developed in? Isn't that totally irrelevant? We are
not talking framework rather we are talking IDE. I would pose the
question and I will but their system is under maintenance at the moment.
> How many years it took em?
You want me to ask them that too? Does it really matter? After all it's
just two guys. My guess is they probably did it in way less time than
you and your mob of developers would have taken.... Then again I would
need a sizable application that you have developed in order to compare
the two...
> What would make their life easier?
Who cares? And why do you feel the need to interject on them what you
think they need? If they are happy where there are at why should it
matter to you?
> And then see if a IDE feature fits that description, and I'm sure you
> will find your answer.
You're the salesman not I. They are just coders....
> Comeon man at least Jerry had some semi valid arguments based on the
> real world, you are talking completely out of your ass.
Oh yeah. So Jinzora is not real world. What is the real world for you? I
suppose you think my personal experience (again way longer than your
career) is also not real world experience. Well let me tell you - it is
indeed my real world and I'm living it.
> I'm not even going to start on the personal attacks you made on my
> spelling and grammar.
Sorry your spelling and grammar suck but that's really not something I
can help you with...
> Considering with the internet, global villege etc.
Oh so you think because it's the Internet things like language don't
matter? Communication is communication. Get used to it!
> You would think people can see past these differences.
Why should I have to?
> Like not being able to speak or write flawlessly.
You mean not being able to communicate correctly nor effectively. Ah yes
I know that's an excuse that many people use. Then again it's an excuse
like any other. Tell me, what's wrong with communicating correctly?
> But hey, from the above it is evident you are not worth the chair you
> are sitting on.
I get paid very well thank you. Probably much more than you. I do not
need you to validate me.
> So, I'll refrain from correspondance in your direction,
Oh wonderful. I'll mark my calendar in celebration.
> and I'd like to ask you that you refrain from any in mine.
Sorry bud but I communicate with whoever I want to. You can ask all you
want. You'll just be disappointed.
> And let my argument with Jerry continue without your petty bullshit.
Sorry you think it's petty. Guess you're gonna have to live with that...
--
Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.
| |
|
| > You're barking up the wrong tree here pal. I have no problem with
> change. I do have a problem with change with little gain however. Look,
> if all I did was PHP coding in large projects you'd perhaps have a
> point. In fact I'd probably be using a PHP based IDE. But that's not
> what I do. I code in many different languages and quite frankly having a
> specialized IDE for each language would be way too much of a bother than
> be considered any sort of productivity gain to me. IOW it wouldn't bring
> me, in particular, any benefit. Is that really so difficult to
> understand? That not everybody thinks like you nor wants to have your
> environment? Pure arrogance on your part!
Quote from my original post:
"Using Zend Studio at the moment. IMO opinion there's nothing out there
other then Zend and perhaps NuSphere (which I haven't tried)for *large*
scale PHP development.
And anyone that stated in this thread that they don't need anything more
then text pad, obviously have not worked on a *large* scale PHP project."
Which you obviously not read, my argument was only about large PHP
projects!!! What hints to that is *large* being scattered all the way
though that post, furthermore I said IMO.
So what am I to argue now?
That perhaps the problem isn't my communications skills?
But more your comprehension skills?
Or should I argue that you lied about having been *following* this thread?
You decide.
Actually do us all a favor and don't.
Because I'm sure there wont be: "Oh shit sorry, mate, I really started
hanging shit on you for no reason other then your bad spelling and
grammar". Because your unmeasurable ego wont let you. And you know what
the best thing is? Is that you know that I'm right. ;)
Oh yeah I noticed you some how managed to grab my *you are not worth the
chair you are sitting in* comment and turn it into something
materialistic, while I was simply referring to your integrity and moral
foundation, or should I say the lack of.
How's that for effective communication? Not bad, for a person who
started learning English at 15 ;)
Anyway, I'm. going home.. its been entertaining, well until Jerry left?
or went to bed, as he said he was in one.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
>
> Quote from my original post:
>
> "Using Zend Studio at the moment. IMO opinion there's nothing out
> there other then Zend and perhaps NuSphere (which I haven't tried)for
> *large* scale PHP development.
>
> And anyone that stated in this thread that they don't need anything
> more then text pad, obviously have not worked on a *large* scale PHP
> project."
>
> Which you obviously not read, my argument was only about large PHP
> projects!!!
Perhaps it was all of those grammatical errors that threw me. You know
things like "Which you obviously not read" which I suspect you really
meant "Which you obviously did not read..." and things like "IMO
opinion" which translates to "In My Opinion opinion". Guess I'm not sure
what an "opinion opinion" is really...
In any event, the fact still stands that IDEs aren't for everybody as
not everybody is limited to only coding PHP (or any other language for
that matter) let alone the fact that other people have differing
opinions than your arrogant one.
> What hints to that is *large* being scattered all the way though that
> post, furthermore I said IMO.
>
> So what am I to argue now?
> That perhaps the problem isn't my communications skills?
> But more your comprehension skills?
Try correct English... Then we'll talk. ;-)
> Or should I argue that you lied about having been *following* this
> thread?
Didn't lie. Don't spend much time trying to sort out other peoples
communication difficulties though I must admit.
While we're at it you might want to explain why you are  with my
statement (paraphrased here) in which I stated that I don't only code in
PHP. Exactly which part of that are you having difficult understanding?
I will help you with your English comprehension...
> You decide.
> Actually do us all a favor and don't.
No such favors granted... You do not speak for everybody (though you
arrogantly think you do).
> Because I'm sure there wont be: "Oh shit sorry, mate, I really started
> hanging shit on you for no reason other then your bad spelling and
> grammar".
Yeah don't go holding your breath mate. ("Mate"? Makes you sound
English. And with such bad command of the language...)
> Because your unmeasurable ego wont let you.
No there's that silly little thing about reality and truth that always
gets in my way.... Sorry about that.
> And you know what the best thing is? Is that you know that I'm right. ;)
Not quite. I know that you are wrong however...
> Oh yeah I noticed you some how managed to grab my *you are not worth
> the chair you are sitting in* comment and turn it into something
> materialistic, while I was simply referring to your integrity and
> moral foundation, or should I say the lack of.
My integrity and moral foundation are thankfully still fully intact. I
speak from true experience and thus am unaffected by your drivel...
But I must point out, if you did not mean what you said then why did you
bother saying it?!?
> How's that for effective communication?
Overall I'd grade it a C+. ;-)
> Not bad, for a person who started learning English at 15 ;)
What in god's name were you waiting for... Mate! :-)
> Anyway, I'm. going home.. its been entertaining, well until Jerry
> left? or went to bed, as he said he was in one.
Glad to make your night. Sorry to say you did not make mine...
--
Why do you always turn down your radio when looking for an address?
| |
| jussij@zeusedit.com 2005-10-25, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
> Sorry let me rephrase if you are unable to read between
> the lines. I mean in theory you could do anything with
> notepad,
I don't think anyone is suggesting the use of notepad. I
mean you could also use edlin if that takes your fancy ;)
> it is not very effective on a large scale project.
> Any yes... PHP programmer, that claims that a simple text
> editor can be effective on a *LARGE* scale PHP project,
> using Object Orientated Architecture, and claims that there
> will be no benefit granted to him/her and/or the project by
> utilizing a IDE is disillusioned.
The only problem with this argument is just because you
find it impossible to work efficiently with a text editor,
that does not automatically mean others will be the same.
The output of a programmer is text, so the efficency of
a programmer can be measured by the lines of code they
produce and the quality of that output.
So why is it so difficult to believe that some people WILL
code faster (ie are more efficient) using a text editor they
are familiar with, rather than an IDE to which they are not?
> I am very willing to learn, and I have mastered the art of
> texteditor & VI programming a long time ago. And frankly on
> a large project interfacing a dozen other large systems, it
> would be suicide to tred that path.
Once again, all this means is you might have mastered the art
of using a text editor, but you failed to master the task of
developing large project with anything other than an IDE.
It does not mean it is not possible.
Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows IDE
http://www.zeusedit.com
| |
| Geoff Berrow 2005-10-25, 7:55 am |
| A waste of electrons? You decide, but Message-ID:
<djk5v2$16oc$5@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> from Ramon contained the following:
>
>Very hard to belive, not sure how many people would use a texteditor
>alternative to .NET tech.
But for deep understanding you can't beat a plain vanilla text editor.
It's the difference between learning to drive in a car with a manual
gearbox as opposed to an automatic.
And I'm an old dog who has learned a few new tricks.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> And I will repeat mine: What good is it *not *to be familar with the
> function call in question?
I'm not suggesting that one should try *not* to learn function syntax!
If you remember the syntax of all the functions you ever use, great!
The functions I use all the time, of course I know them off by heart by
force of habit.
However, I make no special effort to commit to memory
functions/functionality that I use once in a blue moon (e.g. in the
case of PHP, the rare occasion when I do need to use imagejpeg(), or
the optional arguments to preg_match_all()), because with a decent IDE
there's no need!
> And you shouldn't have thousands of functions! If you got that much then
> you should break things into smaller , more manageable pieces.
I was referring mainly to "built-in" functions, i.e. API functions.
But even user-written functions, it's hardly uncommon to have hundreds
of functions even in a relatively trivial application, is it? Yes, you
can encapsulate them by good use of OOP design, but ultimately there
are still hundreds of functions that have to be called at some point.
>
> Sure it does.
How?
>
> Who says that XEmacs, for example, doesn't do syntax highlighting?!?
Well, I wasn't referring to XEmacs when I wrote that, but I get the
impression from this thread that some people seem to write their code
in something little more advanced than Notepad ;)
>
> How many applications do you write that actually use more than a handful
> of those APIs? And the Windows and Java APIs are not great examples of
> well engineered and well thought out APIs, IMHO...
Do you have an example of an API (non-trivial, such as for an entire
framework e.g. MFC or Swing) that you would call "well thought out",
out of curiosity?
>
> You would argue that writing things efficiently is a pointless waste of
> time. That speaks more about you than it does about me. Granted, I don't
> write tight assembly code for my apps but I sure know enough to
> appreciate somebody who does instead of calling his work pointless!
WOT, but...
Have you heard of the 80/20 rule (possibly the 90/10 rule)? The fact
that in most non-trivial applications, 80% of the execution time is
spent in 20% of the code, normally short data-intensive processing
loops, e.g. FFTs, low-level parsing, image-processing, etc. Sure,
optimise *those*, I agree; that wouldn't be pointless at all.
But optimising the other 80% of the code is a case of diminishing
returns; it simply won't make a worthwhile difference, because it's not
the rate-limiting bottleneck. Optimising, for instance, the GUI so that
it responds to a key-press 1 microsecond faster is of no benefit to
anyone (except perhaps in the case of low-level I/O hooks); no-one's
going to notice, and you'll probably have spent several hours in the
process.
Also, the fact that modern optimising compilers are, on the whole,
pretty good, means that the majority of your application binary won't
be any smaller or faster by writing the assembler yourself.
And the inordinate amount of time it would take to rewrite in assembler
what would be trivial code in C strikes me as grossly time-ineffective,
except in the case of the big bottle-necks (the 20%).
Not to mention that a whole application in pure assembler would be far
more error-prone, difficult to debug, difficult to maintain, difficult
to extend, and difficult to read as it affords no data abstraction -
the whole point of higher-level concepts such as data-types or OOP.
--
Oli
| |
| R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Geoff Berrow wrote:
> A waste of electrons? You decide, but Message-ID:
> <djk5v2$16oc$5@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> from Ramon contained the following:
>
>
> But for deep understanding you can't beat a plain vanilla text editor.
> It's the difference between learning to drive in a car with a manual
> gearbox as opposed to an automatic.
>
> And I'm an old dog who has learned a few new tricks.
Hmm... I don't have a car, but I'm sure IDE's will speed up the work
almost or at least to double than in text editors:-)
--
<?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?>
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, still doesn't compute. What stops one from logging into a system
> and tweaking and recompiling say a C program? Ah are you locked into MS
> VisualStudio? Well lookee here! Another monolithic IDE application!
> Which, of course, points to another reason why IDEs are indeed bad. It
> seems you are admitting that without them you cannot work!
Whether the compiler and linker are built into an IDE or stand-alone,
you still need access to a compiler/linker in order to recompile and
rebuild after a code change, hence "'specialist' tools" in my earlier
point. I wasn't suggesting that the need for a compiler "dictates the
need for an IDE", simply that the previous argument (that not relying
on an IDE means you can work anywhere easily) isn't generally true.
> You see it starts off with "Gee this is because it colors the
> syntax. And look here it bring up the relevant documentation! And auto
> completes. Cool, , . And I can drag and drop my files into this
> project thingy and not have to think about make files" then progresses
> to the point where, without the monolithic IDE application and your
> "environment" you effectively can't work - and that's bad!
It kind of goes back to the "pain in the arse" argument. I *could*
write an entire application in Notepad/XEmacs/generic-text-editor, it
would just be a pain in the arse! The tools offered by the IDE greatly
increase my productivity, without detracting from my *understanding* of
my code (in the logical/design-structure sense) in any way.
>
> I beg to differ. Often IDEs implement concepts of projects and other
> things that are not only designed to work from the IDE, but can't work
> at all unless you are in the IDE. You loose the concept of how to
> construct the program outside of the context of the IDE itself.
Ah, perhaps I should've been clearer - when I said "construct", I guess
I meant "design", as in the design of class hierarchy, data-types,
algorithms, data abstraction, etc., not the physical implementation of
dividing into source files, using makefiles, source control, etc.
But then, knowing how to build a C app via the command-line, etc.
doesn't really offer much insight into how to build a Java app via the
command-line, nor how to perform gate-synthesis from VHDL without the
IDE. (The point being that the argument that knowing how to do it from
basics is a more fundamental/universally-applicable skill doesn't
necessarily follow either).
>
> I disagree. Take a sizable application that you use your IDE for and
> take it out of the IDE. I bet you'll be surprised how it's not an easy
> task to do...
Isn't that more a compatability issue? Clearly a C++ project done in MS
VS won't work in the Borland IDE "straight out of the box", for
example.
--
Oli
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that one should try *not* to learn function syntax!
I didn't say syntax! You did.
> If you remember the syntax of all the functions you ever use, great!
Yup. And for the ones I don't remember I... guess what? Look it up.
Essentially this is no different than the fancy IDE. It's just the
manner in which the look up takes place that differs. In my world it's
generally a browser or recently just a PDF file. In such a mode it was
not just looking up the function syntax but reading the parameter
descriptions, return values and looking at code snippet examples. In
your world it's apparently just a reminder of the syntax. I contend that
I know more about my unknown function before I call it than you do.
> The functions I use all the time, of course I know them off by heart
> by force of habit.
Exactly. Now you're getting the spirit. And you know more than just the
number of parameters and ordering of those parameters. In fact, I'll bet
you read about it in depth at one time. That's exactly what I'm doing -
to start with.
> However, I make no special effort to commit to memory
> functions/functionality that I use once in a blue moon (e.g. in the
> case of PHP, the rare occasion when I do need to use imagejpeg(), or
> the optional arguments to preg_match_all()), because with a decent IDE
> there's no need!
You admit that these are rare occurrences. Indeed then why are we
discussing them as they are not the norm, day to day, bread and butter
that makes somebody productive or not - these are, by your very
definition, exceptions. I want an editor that's good at the vast
majority of what I do, not one that offers perks on rare occasions. I do
not wish to spend my time learning a new tool, a basic editor, of which
I use all the time, and for many types of languages, that shines largely
in rare occurrences and is only useful for one of the many languages I
deal in. That plus it weighs in at a pretty good memory foot print and
consumes lots of CPU. Again, thanks but no thanks. It's not the right
tool for the job (partly because I'm doing more than one job).
>
> I was referring mainly to "built-in" functions, i.e. API functions.
And you think I was referring to something else? Does it really matter
if it was "built-in" or not? What exactly is a "built-in" function
anyway? It doesn't matter really. Having to remember thousands of
function calls is by definition, too large of a scope of a problem and
begs to be broken into smaller more manageable pieces. You don't write
your own functions with thousands of lines of code do you?
> But even user-written functions, it's hardly uncommon to have hundreds
> of functions even in a relatively trivial application, is it? Yes, you
> can encapsulate them by good use of OOP design, but ultimately there
> are still hundreds of functions that have to be called at some point.
You don't necessarily need to resort to OOP design, you can just use
modules or whatever.
In any respect, just being reminded of the syntax of a function call is
no substitute for looking up the function proper. And a good editor is
better than a mediocre editor that had function prototype prompting that
you only need in rare occasions and that only really functions for a
specific language at a specific time, taking up mass quantities of your
system's resources. (and all this just to produce a text file...)
>
> How?
By making people look it up instead of guessing at what somebody else
(i.e. your IDE) thinks you should be doing.
>
> Well, I wasn't referring to XEmacs when I wrote that,
But I was and you know it.
> but I get the impression from this thread that some people seem to
> write their code in something little more advanced than Notepad ;)
Considering just about everything is more advanced that Notepad you must
define the phrase "a little". IMHO your precious IDE is also "a little"
more advanced than Notepad. XEmacs is a lot more advanced than Notepad.
With XEmacs I can edit files off my home server and include a file from
an ftp server in France without batting an eye. As far as I'm concerned
it's like those files are right on my local system at work. Can your IDE
do that?
(And if you say "Well how many times do you do that?" I'd have to say:
File from an ftp server in France - granted, not often (I don't speak
French :-) ) but edit files on my home system using EFS and ftp - often).
>
> Do you have an example of an API (non-trivial, such as for an entire
> framework e.g. MFC or Swing) that you would call "well thought out",
> out of curiosity?
Well how about those good old Unix syscalls... Last time I counted them
there were like 600 calls iff you included all of the system library
calls (section 3). This was HP_UX. I'm sure that the Posix set is
smaller. And yet with that API what useful things have people produced?
Lots.
>
> WOT, but...
Again, only you would think of it as a waste of time because you do not
understand nor appreciate the concept of efficiency - efficiency that
you start with, not address later...
> Have you heard of the 80/20 rule (possibly the 90/10 rule)? The fact
> that in most non-trivial applications, 80% of the execution time is
> spent in 20% of the code, normally short data-intensive processing
> loops, e.g. FFTs, low-level parsing, image-processing, etc. Sure,
> optimise *those*, I agree; that wouldn't be pointless at all.
IMHO the 80/20 rule is a convenient way of justifying not optimizing all
of your code. Sure start with that 20% that is used most. But why stop
there?
> But optimising the other 80% of the code is a case of diminishing
> returns; it simply won't make a worthwhile difference, because it's
> not the rate-limiting bottleneck. Optimising, for instance, the GUI so
> that it responds to a key-press 1 microsecond faster is of no benefit
> to anyone (except perhaps in the case of low-level I/O hooks);
> no-one's going to notice, and you'll probably have spent several hours
> in the process.
Ah but if you start with optimization in mind you don't have to go back
and do it over later... Every wonder why we have 3 Ghz machines with
gigs of memory and still they get bogged down. You've just wrote why
that happens. Because of people who believe that optimizing their code
is not worth it. Because of people who bemoan others who think
optimizing is worth it and who call people who practice that art foolish...
> Also, the fact that modern optimising compilers are, on the whole,
> pretty good, means that the majority of your application binary won't
> be any smaller or faster by writing the assembler yourself.
While optimizing compilers can help lazy programmers that don't think
that code optimization is important they can not hold a candle to a good
programmer using assembly. There are full functioning applications
including things like text editors that are under 40K in size! When you
produce such an application using your whiz bang IDE with an optimizing
compiler then give me a ring...
> And the inordinate amount of time it would take to rewrite in
> assembler what would be trivial code in C strikes me as grossly
> time-ineffective, except in the case of the big bottle-necks (the 20%).
You are making an assumption that it is time consuming. I'll bet that
Steve Gibson could bang out a full application in assembly in a day or
two that you probably couldn't produce in a few ws. That guy's insane.
> Not to mention that a whole application in pure assembler would be far
> more error-prone, difficult to debug, difficult to maintain, difficult
> to extend, and difficult to read as it affords no data abstraction -
> the whole point of higher-level concepts such as data-types or OOP.
Yada, yada. We've all heard it before. Of course it would be difficult
for most people to understand, maintain, etc. Most people don't even
understand assembly. But there are people which do understand that stuff
and who are capable of producing extremely tight, efficient code at
break neck paces. You are not one of them. Neither am I. The difference
is I appreciate what they can do and you bemoan them.
--
It doesn't matter what temperature a room is, it's always room temperature.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> Whether the compiler and linker are built into an IDE or stand-alone,
Huh? What are you talking about? What compiler/linkers are built into
which IDEs? I'm curious...
> you still need access to a compiler/linker in order to recompile and
> rebuild after a code change, hence "'specialist' tools" in my earlier
> point.
Having say C compiler on a machine is not what I would call a specialist
tool. It should be installed by default. Also, you can run a C compiler
from a networked location... (C is just an example here...)
> I wasn't suggesting that the need for a compiler "dictates the need
> for an IDE", simply that the previous argument (that not relying on an
> IDE means you can work anywhere easily) isn't generally true.
Granted you'll need the compiler. In my mind that's a given. You will,
BTW, need the interpreter for any of PHP, Perl, etc. locally installed.
So the point of having the necessary compiler/linker or interpreter is
moot. The point is, that you can indeed operate without an IDE except in
the rare case were the compiler/linker/interpreter, whatever is actually
built into the IDE (in fact I'd say none) - which, BTW is a crazy idea
and only goes to prove my point that you become dependent on the IDE and
unable to function without it!
>
> It kind of goes back to the "pain in the arse" argument. I *could*
> write an entire application in Notepad/XEmacs/generic-text-editor,
Of course you could. Many, many do already. In fact, as this whole
argument has been about, many prefer it that way and yes indeed many are
more productive that way!
> it would just be a pain in the arse!
Why would it be a pain in the arse (BTW you can say ass - we are all
adults here and even the FCC allows the word ass!)? I do not find it a
pain in the ass. In fact I find much utility in such tools. In fact 2, I
find more utility than I find in the pretty font, overly helpful and
over resource consuming, specialized IDEs.
> The tools offered by the IDE greatly increase my productivity,
Great! Then you use them! But do not tell everybody else to use them.
> without detracting from my *understanding* of my code (in the
> logical/design-structure sense) in any way.
I'm glad you find the tool useful. I find my tools useful.
>
> Ah, perhaps I should've been clearer - when I said "construct", I
> guess I meant "design", as in the design of class hierarchy,
> data-types, algorithms, data abstraction, etc., not the physical
> implementation of dividing into source files, using makefiles, source
> control, etc.
Ah again, you miscommunicated.
> But then, knowing how to build a C app via the command-line, etc.
> doesn't really offer much insight into how to build a Java app via the
> command-line, nor how to perform gate-synthesis from VHDL without the
> IDE. (The point being that the argument that knowing how to do it from
> basics is a more fundamental/universally-applicable skill doesn't
> necessarily follow either).
Again you've lost your knowledge of how to build without the IDE. You
have effectively become dependent on it and can't function without it.
Doesn't sound like a win to me...
>
> Isn't that more a compatability issue? Clearly a C++ project done in
> MS VS won't work in the Borland IDE "straight out of the box", for
> example.
Figures you'd confuse this too. No I said take it out of an IDE not put
it into another IDE. That's irrelevant. Tell me Mr. IDE Man... How do
you perform automated nightly building of these large and vastly
different applications of an organization where X uses MS VS and Y use
Borland and Z uses Powerbuilder or some other such crap, late at night
with nobody else around on some server in the back room somewhere. What
do you install all of the IDEs that everybody prefers because you cannot
build their apps without their specific IDE, or specific version of IDE?
And how to you, in an automated fashion, with nobody there, fire up
those IDEs and push buttons from a build script? Again, I'm curious...
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 19:07:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
> Huh? What are you talking about? What compiler/linkers are built into
> which IDEs? I'm curious...
Integrated, whatever, I think you knew what I meant... You yourself
implied it when you implied that I was locked into MS VS for compilation
purposes.
>
> Having say C compiler on a machine is not what I would call a specialist
> tool. It should be installed by default. Also, you can run a C compiler
> from a networked location... (C is just an example here...)
>
> You will,
> BTW, need the interpreter for any of PHP, Perl, etc. locally installed.
Well, not strictly necessary to make code modification.
> So the point of having the necessary compiler/linker or interpreter is
> moot. The point is, that you can indeed operate without an IDE except in
> the rare case were the compiler/linker/interpreter, whatever is actually
> built into the IDE (in fact I'd say none)
Hmm, perhaps you're right on this one.
>
> Of course you could. Many, many do already. In fact, as this whole
> argument has been about, many prefer it that way and yes indeed many are
> more productive that way!
I gathered that, and I'm trying to find out how/why...
>
> Why would it be a pain in the arse (BTW you can say ass - we are all
> adults here and even the FCC allows the word ass!)? I do not find it a
> pain in the ass. In fact I find much utility in such tools. In fact 2, I
> find more utility than I find in the pretty font, overly helpful and
> over resource consuming, specialized IDEs.
The biggest single reason I love an IDE that "understands" the language?
Project navigation. A project with 100 classes split over an equally
large number of source/header files, in a generic text editor, if I
wanted to look up the the implementation of X::Foo(), I'd either have to
remember that Class X is defined somewhere in source file Y, then search
that file (semi)manually, or do a global search for "Foo()" and wade
through the results. In an IDE, I click on X in class-view, then click
on Foo(), and I'm straight there (in VS, I press F12 when the caret is
on a call to X::Foo(), the effect is the same).
Biggest second reason - click on a compiler error message, and it jumps
to the code in question, saves an inordinate amount of time. I don't
actually care that the error is on Line 362 in foo.cpp, I just need to
see the relevant code, NOW.
BTW - "Arse" is the English spelling and pronunciation - when I say
"English" I mean the English that they speak in England ;)
>
> Great! Then you use them! But do not tell everybody else to use them.
I never did at any point in this discussion! Just offering my views, and
attempting to learn the reasoning behind the alternate view/methodology.
Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in what you (and others)
have to say and why you do things the way you do.
>
> Ah again, you miscommunicated.
Yup! Is it clearer now?
>
> Again you've lost your knowledge of how to build without the IDE. You
> have effectively become dependent on it and can't function without it.
> Doesn't sound like a win to me...
You missed the point I was trying to make, I think.
If you know the exact nuances of command-line C compilation and
building, utilising every single feature that makefiles afford, that's
great. Now sit down in front of the command-line and try to build a Java
app from source - you're back to square one, unless you sift through the
documentation and learn the nuances of Java compilers, etc. The
"fundamental" knowledge of how to organise and build an app from basics
isn't actually that "fundamental" (my term, not yours, I know), because
you have to re-learn it for every language you use.
>
> Figures you'd confuse this too. No I said take it out of an IDE not put
> it into another IDE. That's irrelevant. Tell me Mr. IDE Man... How do
> you perform automated nightly building of these large and vastly
> different applications of an organization where X uses MS VS and Y use
> Borland and Z uses Powerbuilder or some other such crap, late at night
> with nobody else around on some server in the back room somewhere. What
> do you install all of the IDEs that everybody prefers because you cannot
> build their apps without their specific IDE, or specific version of IDE?
> And how to you, in an automated fashion, with nobody there, fire up
> those IDEs and push buttons from a build script? Again, I'm curious...
You don't need to build it on every single person's machine/IDE, do you?
As long as the back-office server has access to the actual source-code
via version-control, then the back-office script (insert alternative
here) runs whatever compiler/tools it runs, and then the results are
available on version-control or over the network, or whatever.
BTW, whatever mechanism you use for writing code is just another member
of the list {X, Y, Z} in your example above - it's just as
compatible/incompatible as anything else.
--
Oli
| |
|
| Geoff Berrow wrote:
> A waste of electrons? You decide, but Message-ID:
> <djk5v2$16oc$5@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> from Ramon contained the following:
>
>
>
>
> But for deep understanding you can't beat a plain vanilla text editor.
> It's the difference between learning to drive in a car with a manual
> gearbox as opposed to an automatic.
>
> And I'm an old dog who has learned a few new tricks.
I am sure you have. Infact I have used a vanilla text editor for a long
time. All I am saying that on a *large* project a IDE such as Zend will
increase productivity.
| |
|
| hahaha, you are falling back on my grammatical errors again? Yet, you
still have no freaking argument. You are jsut dribbling along. Pah, not
even worth my time anymore.
I was I could say it's been a pleasure. But I rather say XXXX off.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-25, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 19:07:
>
>
> Integrated, whatever, I think you knew what I meant...
No I didn't. That's why I started off with "Huh?" quickly followed by
"What are you talking about?". Those are questions indicating that I did
not know what you meant - and I still don't! I can't help it if you have
failed, once again, to clearly convey your meaning. Perhaps you should
take a stab at doing so because such unknowns are really getting tiresome.
> You yourself implied it when you implied that I was locked into MS VS
> for compilation purposes.
I did nothing of the sort. You stated above that it was somehow built
in. It follows then that in order to compile you would need the whole
package. Listen this fantasy isn't my creation - it's yours. I asked for
clarification and you conveniently neglected to provide it. Such poor
communication leaves everybody wondering what the hell you are talking
about...
>
> Well, not strictly necessary to make code modification.
Again you are being purposely vague here. What do you mean not strictly
necessary to make code modifications?!? Go ahead and make a code
modification without PHP, Perl or whatever locally installed. Let me
know how that works out for you and how it even runs then!
>
> Hmm, perhaps you're right on this one.
Ah so then you admit that compilers/linkers/interpreters are not build
into IDEs. Good. Then what were you saying before?!?
>
> I gathered that, and I'm trying to find out how/why...
How about the things already mentioned like not being slowed down by
large monolithic applications that have cutesy ways of telling you what
to do while lacking in the real day to day functionality of a good
editor. By having to spend your time installing, updating, patching,
configuring various IDEs for your various languages instead of spending
time coding. By spending time having to learn how to do a simple task
from your old editor in this new IDE editor and finding out it just
can't do it. You know, stuff like that...
>
> The biggest single reason I love an IDE that "understands" the
> language? Project navigation. A project with 100 classes split over an
> equally large number of source/header files, in a generic text editor,
> if I wanted to look up the the implementation of X::Foo(), I'd either
> have to remember that Class X is defined somewhere in source file Y,
> then search that file (semi)manually, or do a global search for
> "Foo()" and wade through the results. In an IDE, I click on X in
> class-view, then click on Foo(), and I'm straight there (in VS, I
> press F12 when the caret is on a call to X::Foo(), the effect is the
> same).
See tags...
> Biggest second reason - click on a compiler error message, and it
> jumps to the code in question, saves an inordinate amount of time. I
> don't actually care that the error is on Line 362 in foo.cpp, I just
> need to see the relevant code, NOW.
That's funny because XEmacs does that already...
> BTW - "Arse" is the English spelling and pronunciation - when I say
> "English" I mean the English that they speak in England ;)
Are we in England? Those English dude are so funny. I'm curious, is it
actually pronounced "ass" like us yanks or is it pronounced "are esss"?
Is it anything like colour or cheques? My god I just love the English
language... Too bad that's the only one I speak...
>
> I never did at any point in this discussion!
Aren't you putting forth the concept that if you are in a large project
then you gotta be using an IDE or you're a fool? Sorry dude but that's
specifically saying to most people that you should use this as most
people do not like to be thought of as a fool...
> Just offering my views, and attempting to learn the reasoning behind
> the alternate view/methodology. Believe it or not, I'm genuinely
> interested in what you (and others) have to say and why you do things
> the way you do.
We've said much already. Do you just not get it or do you simply
disagree with it? I'll state again: It'd be nice to have function name
completion, documentation, browsing, etc. I don't often delve into large
class hierarchies of objects with thousands of methods, calls and tons
of complexity. I've managed to do OK. I would like such functionality.
*HOWEVER*... I will not trade an editor that I find much utility in for
an IDE editor *where I lose a lot of the basic functionality I've come
to know and expect* and have to do all kinds of learning *for one
specific language of which I'm only in part of my workday* desktop up
and then have to do the same thing for the next language/IDE again and
again. I also like the ability to be able to productive without having
to have a monolithic IDE application installed on every machine I do
work on. I like small, well engineered tools that do a small job well
that I can string together over a monolithic monstrosity that does some
things well and others not so good. I like to be able to log into a
machine via a command line and still be able to churn out work without
having to have a whole gui running before I can do anything. This allows
me to create scripts to get 10's to 100's of machines churning out
productive work.
>
> Yup! Is it clearer now?
Yes but why do we have to hash such things out? Can't you endeavor to be
clear in the first place?
>
> You missed the point I was trying to make, I think.
>
> If you know the exact nuances of command-line C compilation and
> building, utilising every single feature that makefiles afford, that's
> great.
BTW I didn't claim that I did.
> Now sit down in front of the command-line and try to build a Java app
> from source - you're back to square one, unless you sift through the
> documentation and learn the nuances of Java compilers, etc.
Not really. Java can be "make'ized" for lack of a better term. Yes I've
heard of ant - even used it once. I was not terribly impressed. Make
attempts to equally deal with C, Fortran, Ada, etc. Ant/Java seems to
leave out all the other languages except Java. Still Ant/Java can and is
done via a command line in a similar way as make so I really don't see
your point here.
> The "fundamental" knowledge of how to organise and build an app from
> basics isn't actually that "fundamental" (my term, not yours, I know),
> because you have to re-learn it for every language you use.
Maybe you do but I don't. In a previous job I was responsible for and
did build the Linux OS and toolchains including GCC, Ada, etc. All of
these ran from command line makes - efficiently and effortlessly. No you
don't have to "re-learn it for every language you use" - quite to the
contrary. And Linux, GCC and Ada are hardly trivial apps.
>
> You don't need to build it on every single person's machine/IDE, do you?
Actually yes I do - sorta. In my capacity I often serve as build/release
engineer. And yes I do have to build everybody else's code. Otherwise it
doesn't get out the door. And no I don't come in at 2 Am and log onto
somebody's desktop to fire up their IDE to push a button to build their
piece of the software...
> As long as the back-office server has access to the actual source-code
> via version-control, then the back-office script (insert alternative
> here) runs whatever compiler/tools it runs, and then the results are
> available on version-control or over the network, or whatever.
Yes generally that's how most people actually build their software. That
being the case, why would you want your developer to build it in a
different fashion, thus possibly introducing bugs because the software
is built one way by the developer and yet another before it's released
out the door?
> BTW, whatever mechanism you use for writing code is just another
> member of the list {X, Y, Z} in your example above - it's just as
> compatible/incompatible as anything else.
The concept here is that you cannot automate a build process where you
are required to fire up a gui to build a portion of the software. If the
build automation is building one way then everybody else should be
building it that way too - otherwise you are not guaranteed that the
developer sees the same problem as the customer does - period!
Since the official build process will be command line driven building
from the IDE is irrelevant.
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-25, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 19:07:
>
>
> The biggest single reason I love an IDE that "understands" the language?
> Project navigation. A project with 100 classes split over an equally
> large number of source/header files, in a generic text editor, if I
> wanted to look up the the implementation of X::Foo(), I'd either have to
> remember that Class X is defined somewhere in source file Y, then search
> that file (semi)manually, or do a global search for "Foo()" and wade
> through the results. In an IDE, I click on X in class-view, then click
> on Foo(), and I'm straight there (in VS, I press F12 when the caret is
> on a call to X::Foo(), the effect is the same).
>
Or, you just look it up in the project documentation. Of course, if you
don't document, I see why you need an IDE!
> Biggest second reason - click on a compiler error message, and it jumps
> to the code in question, saves an inordinate amount of time. I don't
> actually care that the error is on Line 362 in foo.cpp, I just need to
> see the relevant code, NOW.
>
I never found this to be a big advantage. Nice, maybe. But I generally
have the code open in a text editor anyway. And it's generally right
where I've been working.
>
> I never did at any point in this discussion! Just offering my views, and
> attempting to learn the reasoning behind the alternate view/methodology.
> Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in what you (and others)
> have to say and why you do things the way you do.
>
It's simple. IDE's are nice for some people. Other people can be more
efficient without them. Just like there are multiple languages.
>
>
> You missed the point I was trying to make, I think.
>
> If you know the exact nuances of command-line C compilation and
> building, utilising every single feature that makefiles afford, that's
> great. Now sit down in front of the command-line and try to build a Java
> app from source - you're back to square one, unless you sift through the
> documentation and learn the nuances of Java compilers, etc. The
> "fundamental" knowledge of how to organise and build an app from basics
> isn't actually that "fundamental" (my term, not yours, I know), because
> you have to re-learn it for every language you use.
>
I don't need *every* feature of a makefile. Just enough to compile and
link.
As for switching to Java - no problem. If I have forgotten something,
it takes maybe 1 minute to look it up in the help files.
But no, I *don't* need to "re-learn it for every language...". Compiler
options may differ - but I need to set them in the IDE anyway, don't I?
It takes a *lot* longer to figure out why the IDE's defaults don't
work for my project than it does to create a makefile in the first place.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-26, 3:57 am |
| Ramon wrote:
> hahaha, you are falling back on my grammatical errors again? Yet, you
> still have no freaking argument. You are jsut dribbling along. Pah,
> not even worth my time anymore.
Enough of your time to respond yet again.
> I was I could say it's been a pleasure. But I rather say XXXX off.
What's a matter? Haven't figured out how to use a killfile in that IDE
of yours? :-P
--
I always wanted to be a procrastinator but never got around to it
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 26/10/2005 00:41:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> No I didn't. That's why I started off with "Huh?" quickly followed by
> "What are you talking about?". Those are questions indicating that I did
> not know what you meant - and I still don't! I can't help it if you have
> failed, once again, to clearly convey your meaning. Perhaps you should
> take a stab at doing so because such unknowns are really getting tiresome.
I assumed that the "Huh? what are you talking about ... I'm curious" was
newsgroup sarcasm. I was referring to, for instance, the Microsoft
compiler(s) that comes with Visual Studio, is run by default, and whose
input (switches, etc.) and output (compiler error messages) are
integrated into the fabric of the IDE. And yes, I do know that one can,
if one wants to, run the MS compiler completely independently, from
command-line.
I would have thought that it was obvious that that was what I was
referring to, considering we're talking about being locked into
monolithic IDEs. My apologies that it wasn't.
>
> Again you are being purposely vague here. What do you mean not strictly
> necessary to make code modifications?!?
Exactly that - you don't *need* a local interpreter to make
modifications to, for instance, PHP code. True, it's may be somewhat
brave to make code changes without testing them, but in principle it's
obviously possible.
> Go ahead and make a code
> modification without PHP, Perl or whatever locally installed. Let me
> know how that works out for you and how it even runs then!
Many moons ago, this particular point originated at someone saying that
if, in a crisis, he realised some part of his (PHP) application was
screwing up, he could access the code from anywhere, make the change,
and re-upload it. So even if one does want to test it (which one
obviously does), you still don't *need* a local interpreter.
Which brings me back to my original point - scripts are (usually)
literally just files full of text - no intermediate steps or tools are
required between changing the source code, and that change being
operational.
>
> Ah so then you admit that compilers/linkers/interpreters are not build
> into IDEs. Good.
Was referring to the paragraph as a whole - not that individual statement...
>
> How about the things already mentioned like not being slowed down by
> large monolithic applications that have cutesy ways of telling you what
> to do while lacking in the real day to day functionality of a good
> editor.
I beg to disagree that an IDE "tells me what to do" - certainly it
assists me in doing certain things, or does certain tedious
house-keeping for me, but that's the whole point of a tool.
Which functionality specifically does a "good editor" give you that
isn't available in your average "good IDE"? You gave the FTP example
elsewhere in this thread - not only can MS VS manage a web project over
FTP, but the Windows abstraction of the file system allows you to access
remote files like they were local anyway.
(At this point, you're probably thinking that I'm some crazed hardcode
MS advocate! I'm not, it's just that in my day to day life, I happen to
use their OS and their IDE 99% of the time).
> By having to spend your time installing, updating, patching,
> configuring various IDEs for your various languages instead of spending
> time coding
You never have to install/update/patch all the individual components and
plug-ins in your tool set?
> By spending time having to learn how to do a simple task
> from your old editor in this new IDE editor and finding out it just
> can't do it. You know, stuff like that...
See further down...
>
> See tags...
>
>
> That's funny because XEmacs does that already...
As they say, "you learn something new every day". I've barely ever used
XEmacs, so I didn't know it was capable of doing these things.
This tags facility, I get the impression from some brief Googling that
the tags database has to be manually refreshed?
>
> Are we in England?
Well, at least one of us is!
> Those English dude are so funny. I'm curious, is it
> actually pronounced "ass" like us yanks or is it pronounced "are esss"?
Mostly like your phonetic representation. Although many people here have
been "corrupted" by the influx of American culture via TV and films, and
assume that "ass" is the way forward...
>
> Aren't you putting forth the concept that if you are in a large project
> then you gotta be using an IDE or you're a fool? Sorry dude but that's
> specifically saying to most people that you should use this as most
> people do not like to be thought of as a fool...
I've never said that or implied that at any point (well I hope I
haven't) - that was the other guy Ramon...
>
> We've said much already. Do you just not get it or do you simply
> disagree with it? I'll state again: It'd be nice to have function name
> completion, documentation, browsing, etc. I don't often delve into large
> class hierarchies of objects with thousands of methods, calls and tons
> of complexity. I've managed to do OK. I would like such functionality.
> *HOWEVER*... I will not trade an editor that I find much utility in for
> an IDE editor *where I lose a lot of the basic functionality I've come
> to know and expect* and have to do all kinds of learning *for one
> specific language of which I'm only in part of my workday* desktop up
> and then have to do the same thing for the next language/IDE again and
> again. I also like the ability to be able to productive without having
> to have a monolithic IDE application installed on every machine I do
> work on. I like small, well engineered tools that do a small job well
> that I can string together over a monolithic monstrosity that does some
> things well and others not so good. I like to be able to log into a
> machine via a command line and still be able to churn out work without
> having to have a whole gui running before I can do anything. This allows
> me to create scripts to get 10's to 100's of machines churning out
> productive work.
OK, now I'm getting somewhere - you've put forth specific reasons for
why (for you, at least) a dedicated IDE is a pain in some ways. (Up
until now you've mostly been challenging my points without actually
offering reasons for the alternative).
The points you make are good - however for me they mostly don't apply.
It's very rare that I work on a machine that isn't my own (at work, even
if I do, the same IDEs are usually already installed or easily
accessible). If I did, yes of course I'd miss the features of my IDE, I
freely admit, but I'd like to think that I'm competent enough to be able
to deal with it.
The biggest single point I agree with wholeheartedly is the lack of
uniformity amongst IDEs (some are unavoidable, of course, due to
language differences). I wish there was an IDE designed on a similar
principle to XEmacs, (i.e. easily extendible for any
language/platform/package), but still offering scope for all the ""
proprietary/language-specific features. If there was, and it was good,
I'd drop MS VS, JBuilder, etc. in a second (possibly).
Maybe there is such a thing already, I don't know...
>
> Yes but why do we have to hash such things out? Can't you endeavor to be
> clear in the first place?
>
Whilst "think before you type" is a virtue I attempt to adhere to,
doesn't *always* work in practice.
>
> BTW I didn't claim that I did.
I know - Hypothetical "You" in the general sense.
>
> Actually yes I do - sorta. In my capacity I often serve as build/release
> engineer. And yes I do have to build everybody else's code. Otherwise it
> doesn't get out the door. And no I don't come in at 2 Am and log onto
> somebody's desktop to fire up their IDE to push a button to build their
> piece of the software...
Again, a hypothetical "you". But maybe I'm missing something, why would
"building everyone else's code" ever involve firing up all their
machines? If the job of building is taken care of on the central build
server which has full access to all source code, of what relevance is it
what IDE/non-IDE each code module was written in?
>
> Yes generally that's how most people actually build their software. That
> being the case, why would you want your developer to build it in a
> different fashion, thus possibly introducing bugs because the software
> is built one way by the developer and yet another before it's released
> out the door?
Fair point. But decent IDEs allow one to run make-files instead of the
default integrated build process if one wants to, so it's not like one
has lost that option.
I'll admit at this point that I'm not a build engineer, nor do I ever
assume that role, so I'm getting out of my immediate area of experience.
I think it's fair to say, though, that the tools that the build manager
will want to use are inevitably different to the average coder on a project.
--
Oli
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 02:55:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> Or, you just look it up in the project documentation. Of course, if you
> don't document, I see why you need an IDE!
Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation*, not
*doucmentation*...
But either way, wading through documentation to find something when you
could just press a button???
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 02:55:
>
>
> Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation*, not
> *doucmentation*...
>
> But either way, wading through documentation to find something when you
> could just press a button???
>
>
But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!
And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish, make
it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.
Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!
What bearing does that have on anything?
> And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
> Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish, make
> it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.
>
> Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!
>
Javadocs, for instance, are even easier to create!
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:
>
>
> What bearing does that have on anything?
>
If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
names parameters and return values can be documented
Of course, if you don't design the application and fly by the seat of
your pants, that's another story.
>
>
> Javadocs, for instance, are even easier to create!
>
>
But not as easy to search.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-26, 6:56 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 00:09:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
>
> If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
> names parameters and return values can be documented
Yes... and? I don't understand how that follows on from anything I said...
>
> But not as easy to search.
With a decent Java IDE, they are - you press F1 (or Ctrl+F1, or
whatever), and you land straight on the documentation of the
class/method/variable in question.
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 3:55 am |
| Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> Yes... and? I don't understand how that follows on from anything I said...
>
Check back through your messages. You indicated one of the best reasons
to use an IDE is for the autocompletion (or hints) for function. I'm
saying this is bogus - proper documentation replaces the need.
>
>
> With a decent Java IDE, they are - you press F1 (or Ctrl+F1, or
> whatever), and you land straight on the documentation of the
> class/method/variable in question.
>
Ah, another IDE - Java this time!
With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE! And BTW - this is a PHP
newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 3:55 am |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 26/10/2005 00:41:
>
>
> I assumed that the "Huh? what are you talking about ... I'm curious"
> was newsgroup sarcasm.
Wrong assumption on your part. If you are you could always ask
questions.
> I was referring to, for instance, the Microsoft compiler(s) that comes
> with Visual Studio, is run by default, and whose input (switches,
> etc.) and output (compiler error messages) are integrated into the
> fabric of the IDE. And yes, I do know that one can, if one wants to,
> run the MS compiler completely independently, from command-line.
You have a strange way of looking at the phrase "built in". In any
event, I'm curious, as I don't use monolithic IDEs such as Visual
Studio, how exactly do you suck out their concept of a project into a
say a makefile such that you can build the whole application or system
via a simple command or script. MS VS may have this but I believe other
monolithic IDEs (e.g. Powerbuilder) don't.
> I would have thought that it was obvious that that was what I was
> referring to, considering we're talking about being locked into
> monolithic IDEs. My apologies that it wasn't.
Apology accepted.
>
> Exactly that - you don't *need* a local interpreter to make
> modifications to, for instance, PHP code. True, it's may be somewhat
> brave to make code changes without testing them, but in principle it's
> obviously possible.
Logical disconnect here again. You never make changes with the
interpreter - you make them with an editor. Hence my confusion about
your statement. You need an interpreter to run the code. You need the
compiler/linker to compile and link non interpreted code. To me these
are a given. What you don't need is a monolithic IDE and if you are
crippled by the fact that you cannot work effectively, efficiently or
whatever without your IDE locally installed then you effectively have a
handicap.
>
> Many moons ago, this particular point originated at someone saying
> that if, in a crisis, he realised some part of his (PHP) application
> was screwing up, he could access the code from anywhere, make the
> change, and re-upload it. So even if one does want to test it (which
> one obviously does), you still don't *need* a local interpreter.
By "local interpreter" I was referring to an interpreter on the box that
runs the code.
> Which brings me back to my original point - scripts are (usually)
> literally just files full of text - no intermediate steps or tools are
> required between changing the source code, and that change being
> operational.
>
>
> Was referring to the paragraph as a whole - not that individual
> statement...
Now you have me totally . The point of the paragraph was to
enlighten you to the fact that interpreters like PHP are *not* build
into IDEs rather they are separate entities - indeed separate
executables that do not require nor use an IDE at all. Do you or do you
not agree with that statement?
>
> I beg to disagree that an IDE "tells me what to do" - certainly it
> assists me in doing certain things, or does certain tedious
> house-keeping for me, but that's the whole point of a tool.
It is demonstrably telling you what to do! It is telling you what the
function you are typing in is when it assists you with the function
prototype. Now you are indeed free to ignore it's suggestion but it is
obviously telling you what it thinks you are doing at this point.
> Which functionality specifically does a "good editor" give you that
> isn't available in your average "good IDE"?
Being able to edit multiple different languages at the same time and
having the editor be cognizant of the different languages. Being able to
mark sections of code and it knowing how to comment it out with a single
command (and again be cognizant of multiple languages). Being able to
edit files remotely via ftp or ssh on any server in the world. Being
able to dynamically figure out and complete just about anything - not
just function prototypes. Being able to record complex commands and play
them back with ease - even repeatedly. Being able to edit huge files, be
they code or data or even binary (ever patch an executable directly with
that IDE? XEmacs can!). Being able to compile directly from the editor,
trace the errors back to the source, etc. Being able to run shell
commands in the editor capturing and piping the output so as to be able
to fill in files or code directly. Being able to interact with version
control to check out and in files with ease. Being able to extend the
editor in any way I choose using a flexible and AI like language called
lisp. Etc. etc. Sure some IDEs do some of this. Some others do other
parts of this. But rarely does one IDE do all of it. Not having to learn
a whole new way of doing things, different keystrokes, different
concepts, etc. and repeat that for every IDE for every language that I use.
> You gave the FTP example elsewhere in this thread - not only can MS VS
> manage a web project over FTP, but the Windows abstraction of the file
> system allows you to access remote files like they were local anyway.
Really? So I can go into MS VS at work and then poke through the
firewall to edit machines on my Linux box at home through DSL or some
random box in England? Somehow I don't think I could...
> (At this point, you're probably thinking that I'm some crazed hardcode
> MS advocate! I'm not, it's just that in my day to day life, I happen
> to use their OS and their IDE 99% of the time).
Oh I use Windows too. I don't use MS VS. I don't code in MS C++. I don't
code in Visual Basic either (Actually I did do some VB stuff - VB script
stuff - but used XEmacs to do it. MS VS VB is all oriented to creating
Windows GUI programs, but the task at hand was not to produce a GUI
program rather a script. BTW MS VS took up some 500 - 1 gig of my hard
drive! What a waste to write a 100 line VB script! And please refresh my
memory - exactly how much $$$ does one need to put out for MS VS?
Thought so...)
>
> You never have to install/update/patch all the individual components
> and plug-ins in your tool set?
Ah, actually, well - NO! What's your point! XEmacs already handles it
out of the box, is free, and powerful. Cygwin and bash, Perl, PHP, etc
(or Linux etc) is also free, has a great set of tools that are right at
your finger tips. I did have to go out and find visual-basic-mode.el
because that didn't come as default with XEmacs. 30 seconds tops to get
that file, save it then load it. I'm done. Did I have to install Perl or
PHP? Well yes. But so do you - even if you don't use an IDE.
The point is an IDE is way too big and too focused on one language
whereas I use many languages. I do not, therefore, wish to install
multiple IDEs. And the chances are great that each IDE will do things
their own way and slightly differently. One IDE is enough to learn (in
fact I'd say most people use 20% of the functionality of their IDEs -
that old 80/20 rule) never mind 4 or 5 of them! And inevitably there'll
be updates and patches and functionality changes and problems. Why would
I want to deal with 4 or 5 headaches! Similarly I don't install AIM and
MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger and then have to deal with 3 applications
doing the same thing, slightly differently, just because I want to talk
to people on those different networks. Instead I install Trillian which
talks to all of them. IOW Economy of my administration overhead.
Contrast that to something like XEmacs, which has a long history and is
really quite stable.
>
> See further down...
>
>
> As they say, "you learn something new every day". I've barely ever
> used XEmacs, so I didn't know it was capable of doing these things.
>
> This tags facility, I get the impression from some brief Googling that
> the tags database has to be manually refreshed?
Generally the compilers are capable of generating the tags therefore
it's refreshed as a by product of a build. Then again I rarely used tags
as I have rarely been doing 3rd generation programming. Mostly now I use
Perl and PHP.
>
> Well, at least one of us is!
I"m sorry to hear that! ;-)
>
> Mostly like your phonetic representation. Although many people here
> have been "corrupted" by the influx of American culture via TV and
> films, and assume that "ass" is the way forward...
That it is... That it is... I will never get used to things like colour
and cheques. For a giggle you should read: Plan for Improvement of
English Spelling
<https://defaria.com/Jokes/Plan4Impr...ishSpelling.php>
>
> I've never said that or implied that at any point (well I hope I
> haven't) - that was the other guy Ramon...
Oh. OK. So sorry. My mistake.
>
> OK, now I'm getting somewhere - you've put forth specific reasons for
> why (for you, at least) a dedicated IDE is a pain in some ways. (Up
> until now you've mostly been challenging my points without actually
> offering reasons for the alternative).
>
> The points you make are good - however for me they mostly don't apply.
> It's very rare that I work on a machine that isn't my own (at work,
> even if I do, the same IDEs are usually already installed or easily
> accessible). If I did, yes of course I'd miss the features of my IDE,
> I freely admit, but I'd like to think that I'm competent enough to be
> able to deal with it.
As a system administrator I have gone through efforts to make my
window's title the $CWD so I can have the prompt be the name of the
machine I'm working on! When I was at HP in the Language Lab we had some
435 machines. I received root mail from about 100 of them as I was the
lab administrator. Of paramount importance to me when I was about to
type in a reboot command was exactly which machine am I rebooting now!
We live in different worlds my friend.
If I was a "dedicated, all I do is work on this one monolithic PHP
application, there are tons of objects and methods that I deal with day
in and day out, I only work on my machine and push stuff up to other
machines where they run my code or test my code" I'd probably use a PHP
oriented editor (actually I probably wouldn't because I already know
XEmacs and that works fine for me - I'd get additional XEmacs packages
to handle what the IDE give you so I can continue to work in XEmacs).
But my work is different. I not only work in several scripting languages
but I write web pages too and edit all kinds of other language oriented
or structured data files all the time.
> The biggest single point I agree with wholeheartedly is the lack of
> uniformity amongst IDEs (some are unavoidable, of course, due to
> language differences).
That's funny. XEmacs does a pretty good job dealing with that issue. I
do admit that in the different modes there are different commands - but
all of the basic movement, editing, day to day stuff is largely the same...
> I wish there was an IDE designed on a similar principle to XEmacs,
> (i.e. easily extendible for any language/platform/package), but still
> offering scope for all the "" proprietary/language-specific
> features. If there was, and it was good, I'd drop MS VS, JBuilder,
> etc. in a second (possibly).
Personally, and I've often thought of this, I'd like to make to subclass
the text edit widget such that I could usurp all text edit widgets that
the windowing system is using and all of them would use Emacs key
bindings and have the ability to talk to the underlying emacsserver
process. Then I could say in this Thunderbird Compose window simply C-x
i /andrew@defaria.com:/some/path/to/a/file.txt and insert it right here,
or whatever. But alas, while this might be doable under X Windows I
wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how to do that to a Windows machine...
I thought, with my brief exposure to MS VS, that it at least attempted
to accommodate several languages like C++, VB and C#.
> Maybe there is such a thing already, I don't know...
Actually, I believe with a little work you could probably find packages
to have a relatively similar set of " tools" in XEmacs and/or write
your own. Problem is you have to learn to code in lisp (and I'm not very
good at that either).
>
> Whilst "think before you type" is a virtue I attempt to adhere to,
> doesn't *always* work in practice.
Well I've had the same problem and still do on occasion. But I actively
worked on it. Another concept I employ (usually) is the silly and stupid
concept of checking what I typed *before* I hit the send button. I'll do
it here to. After I'm done typing in what I wanted to say I go back and
read it all. I change those mistakes of "your" but meant "you're", etc.
Some times I add stuff. Sometimes I reword stuff. Sometime I check it
again. I find it useful.
I do this because of time when I used to put type out crap and hit send
and after a few people pointed out the errors in my communication I
actually felt ashamed and made an effort to improve that. I truly feel
that the way you communicate says something about you - you make an
impression - and I want to make a good impression. I also spell check my
work. These are all things that many people, especially on the Internet,
kinda even bad mouth. Fine. But I can't help but look at such people as
less intelligent. And it's clear to me that they don't mind if I (and
others) do.
>
> I know - Hypothetical "You" in the general sense.
Oh. OK. Sorry. Thought you mean me..
>
> Again, a hypothetical "you".
There are many of us who do and we really don't appreciate it when your
choice of IDE and your method of building does not easily fit into an
automated way of building large quantities of software which is how it
usually, eventually needs to happen in any large organization.
> But maybe I'm missing something, why would "building everyone else's
> code" ever involve firing up all their machines?
Case in point: At a previous client I was asked to look into automating
the build process. This particular project used Powerbuilder. Not only
did I have to install Powerbuilder but the only way I could build was by
firing up the IDE and selecting the right project file and pushing the
build button. The lead engineer of the project knew of no other way to
build the software!
Then we found that it did have a command line scripting language but
nobody ever used that. I tried to reproduce the build from that
scripting language. There were problems. New versions and patches of
Powerbuilder were installed. Still the lead engineer didn't feel
comfortable with this command line build process and didn't feel
confident that the build was being done correctly. Eventually the
contract ended. I don't know if they ever managed to automate that build
process - my guess is that they didn't..
> If the job of building is taken care of on the central build server
> which has full access to all source code, of what relevance is it what
> IDE/non-IDE each code module was written in?
Yes. But I'm talking about IDEs which require or assume that you build
from within them. See case in point above - a real world actual case.If
an IDE just writes code then it is nothing but an editor is it not?
>
> Fair point. But decent IDEs allow one to run make-files instead of the
> default integrated build process if one wants to, so it's not like one
> has lost that option.
Powerbuilder did not have the capability to produce makefile and in fact
required the installation of Powerbuilder on the machine doing the
building as well as being able to contact the Powerbuilder thing itself
because it stored the source files in what it called PBL (Powerbuilder
Libraries). I know that MS VS can output makefiles. That being the case,
why wouldn't you bop into the command line and type a simple make if for
no other reason than to be building the same way the production build
will be building?
> I'll admit at this point that I'm not a build engineer, nor do I ever
> assume that role, so I'm getting out of my immediate area of
> experience. I think it's fair to say, though, that the tools that the
> build manager will want to use are inevitably different to the average
> coder on a project.
Some 120 engineers working on like 10-15 different projects, each a
compiler or compiler product, all used make (actually clearmake) from
standardized makefiles. Any engineer could build any other project's
code in the exact same manner as they build their own code - it was
simply a clearmake hpux - there you're done! - whether you working on
the Ada compiler, the C compiler, the C++ compiler, FORTRAN, High Level
Optimization, Low Level Optimization, Codegen or whatever. In fact, if
you went to build the C++ compiler it might build Codegen (because it
had been changed) or maybe High Level Optimization, during your course
of building your C++ compiler. Any engineer who went from one project to
the next immediately felt at home as far as the build process. He then
only need to concentrate on what he was being paid for - producing his
code not producing a build system for the project - that was done
already. Furthermore the Integration group could, and eventually did,
build everybody's code before submitting it to manufacturing.
Professionals have profession build systems that have more in mind than
the individual developer but rather have the organization in mind. IDEs
often make making that build system difficult by their very choice of IDE.
--
What happened to the first 6 ups?
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!
>
> And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
> Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish,
> make it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.
Google, HtDig, et. al. would disagree with you!
> Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!
Yeah then try browsing that Windows help file on your Linux workstation...
--
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
> names parameters and return values can be documented
Ah that would be wonderful. But in my some 25 years in the business I
don't think I've ever actually seen that in practice! Then again I do
more admin/build/release stuff... (And surprisingly enough, even at that
late stage of the game, rarely do I see design docs that go to the level
of defining function names and parameters... Sad but true)
> Of course, if you don't design the application and fly by the seat of
> your pants, that's another story.
In my line of work I'm forced to do that all the time...
--
Do illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE! And BTW - this is a
> PHP newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.
But you do need Windows! ;-)
With a web page (and a search engine - of which there are many) you can
do it anywhere, from any machine.
--
Hit any user to continue.
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> But you do need Windows! ;-)
>
> With a web page (and a search engine - of which there are many) you can
> do it anywhere, from any machine.
So? What does that have to do with the original topic - whether an IDE
is better than a text editor or not?
But to respond to your comment. HTML help is fine - but do you have a
search engine which can search all the web pages? I know there are some
out there - but the free ones which will run on an intranet aren't that
great a quality, while the good quality ones are expensive.
Yes, there are some Unix projects out there. And there are developers
who use Unix. I use Unix, also. But virtually all of my development is
done on Windows with a NFS mount from the Linux machine. It's then an
easy job to make the project. And although I don't do much Unix
programming, I don't think I've seen ANY projects which don't have
Windows on the majority of the desktops.
But I'm sure there are some - and the Windows help files don't work
there. But they work for every project in which I've been involved.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Ah that would be wonderful. But in my some 25 years in the business I
> don't think I've ever actually seen that in practice! Then again I do
> more admin/build/release stuff... (And surprisingly enough, even at that
> late stage of the game, rarely do I see design docs that go to the level
> of defining function names and parameters... Sad but true)
>
Then you're Project Manager is not managing the project properly.
I learned about project management when I was working for IBM back in
the 80's. Since then I've been both a programmer and a PM. When I've
been a PM, the documentation is complete long before programming starts
(and yes, I get the programmers involved in the design). And I've been
a programmer on projects where the design is done properly. Every one
was completed on time and within budget, given reasonable time and
budgetary constraints. And change orders were handled by modifying the
design - which showed exactly how it would affect other parts of the
project.
I've also worked on ones where PM wasn't properly done. Some were on
time, but most were late. They also had more bugs and change orders
were harder to implement.
>
>
> In my line of work I'm forced to do that all the time...
I've heard that before. But all but the smallest projects benefit from
a proper design.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> Google, HtDig, et. al. would disagree with you!
>
Let's see Google work on my intranet.
>
>
> Yeah then try browsing that Windows help file on your Linux workstation...
So? I don't use Linux workstations. Windows workstations hooked to a
Linux server.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jacob Atzen 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> I learned about project management when I was working for IBM back in
> the 80's. Since then I've been both a programmer and a PM. When I've
> been a PM, the documentation is complete long before programming starts
> (and yes, I get the programmers involved in the design). And I've been
> a programmer on projects where the design is done properly. Every one
> was completed on time and within budget, given reasonable time and
> budgetary constraints. And change orders were handled by modifying the
> design - which showed exactly how it would affect other parts of the
> project.
That sounds impressive and quite contrary to most testimonials I've ever
read. And quite opposite of the whole agile movement. How are you able
to design everything up front? What methods do you use? I find it very
hard to contain a complete design and anticipating all the problems that
always show up?
--
Cheers,
- Jacob Atzen
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 05:59:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
> Check back through your messages. You indicated one of the best reasons
> to use an IDE is for the autocompletion (or hints) for function.
However, not in this part of the thread - I was instead talking about
navigating the source code itself, with class views and associated tools.
> I'm saying this is bogus - proper documentation replaces the need.
See the argument below...
>
> Ah, another IDE - Java this time!
>
> With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE!
Yes, I know that! And with HTML documentation, you don't need chm files;
and with a hard-copy manual, you don't need HTML documentation; we could
go on...
By the logic of your argument, you should be using Notepad to do your
coding!
The point is that pressing a single button (for me at least), is much
quicker and less distracting than pressing Alt+Tab, making sure the
caret is in the search box, typing the function name, selecting the
correct option, reading the definition in the help-file, temporarily
memorising it (or copy-pasting it), and then pressing Alt+Tab to get
back to the editor and then typing it in.
(Feel free to insert your own key combo instead of Alt+Tab!)
> And BTW - this is a PHP newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.
Indeed, however this thread has become more generalised and seems to be
about IDEs in general...
--
Oli
| |
|
|
| Oli Filth 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 27/10/2005 08:20:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
>
> You have a strange way of looking at the phrase "built in".
Personally, I wouldn't say it's a massive stretch of that phrase.
> I'm curious, as I don't use monolithic IDEs such as Visual
> Studio, how exactly do you suck out their concept of a project into a
> say a makefile such that you can build the whole application or system
> via a simple command or script.
Certainly, older versions did. With VS .NET, I'm not sure.
>
> Now you have me totally . The point of the paragraph was to
> enlighten you to the fact that interpreters like PHP are *not* build
> into IDEs rather they are separate entities - indeed separate
> executables that do not require nor use an IDE at all.
I took the pargraph to be essentially saying that "...the necessary
compiler/linker or interpreter is moot. The point is, that you can
indeed operate without an IDE...", and that's the point I was agreeing with.
>
> It is demonstrably telling you what to do! It is telling you what the
> function you are typing in is when it assists you with the function
> prototype. Now you are indeed free to ignore it's suggestion but it is
> obviously telling you what it thinks you are doing at this point.
Well, not really. It gives you a list of possible matches given the
current context, which it narrows down as you type. As soon as its guess
is equal to your intention, you press Tab. Alternatively, the parameter
info pop-up just reminds you of the order and types of function
parameters, and allows you to view overload options. It's hardly telling
you to do something that you wouldn't have done if left to your own devices!
Certainly no more than a search engine is telling you where to go when
it returns its search results.
>
> Being able to edit multiple different languages at the same time and
> having the editor be cognizant of the different languages. Being able to
> mark sections of code and it knowing how to comment it out with a single
> command (and again be cognizant of multiple languages). Being able to
> edit files remotely via ftp or ssh on any server in the world. Being
> able to dynamically figure out and complete just about anything - not
> just function prototypes.Being able to record complex commands and play
> them back with ease - even repeatedly. Being able to edit huge files, be
> they code or data or even binary (ever patch an executable directly with
> that IDE? XEmacs can!). Being able to compile directly from the editor,
> trace the errors back to the source, etc. Being able to run shell
> commands in the editor capturing and piping the output so as to be able
> to fill in files or code directly. Being able to interact with version
> control to check out and in files with ease. Being able to extend the
> editor in any way I choose using a flexible and AI like language called
> lisp. Etc. etc. Sure some IDEs do some of this. Some others do other
> parts of this. But rarely does one IDE do all of it. Not having to learn
> a whole new way of doing things, different keystrokes, different
> concepts, etc. and repeat that for every IDE for every language that I use.
Well, VS (my IDE of choice for C/C++/C# as you've probably gathered) can
do pretty much all of those things (save the multiple language things).
Can't speak for all IDEs, though.
Thinking about it, VS .NET in fact now offers an API so that third-party
plug-ins can be written or used. I believe there's even a PHP plug-in
somewhere.
>
> Really? So I can go into MS VS at work and then poke through the
> firewall to edit machines on my Linux box at home through DSL or some
> random box in England? Somehow I don't think I could...
If it's FTP access, you probably can. I dunno about SSH.
> (Actually I did do some VB stuff - VB script
> stuff - but used XEmacs to do it. MS VS VB is all oriented to creating
> Windows GUI programs, but the task at hand was not to produce a GUI
> program rather a script. BTW MS VS took up some 500 - 1 gig of my hard
> drive! What a waste to write a 100 line VB script!
Should've used the VBScript in Excel!
>
>
> That it is... That it is... I will never get used to things like colour
> and cheques.
Ditto for color and checks, and "Z"s where "S"s should be! At the risk
of starting a transatlantic divide, remember which came first!!
> For a giggle you should read: Plan for Improvement of
> English Spelling
> <https://defaria.com/Jokes/Plan4Impr...ishSpelling.php>
>
Beautiful...
>
> Well I've had the same problem and still do on occasion. But I actively
> worked on it. Another concept I employ (usually) is the silly and stupid
> concept of checking what I typed *before* I hit the send button. I'll do
> it here to.
^
^
I think this may be irony epitomised!!
> After I'm done typing in what I wanted to say I go back and
> read it all. I change those mistakes of "your" but meant "you're", etc.
> Some times I add stuff. Sometimes I reword stuff. Sometime I check it
> again. I find it useful.
For extended posts like this, I usually spend a long time making sure
that my arguments make as much sense as possible - but sometimes I
forget that what makes sense in my head doesn't always make sense in a NG.
> There are many of us who do and we really don't appreciate it when your
> choice of IDE and your method of building does not easily fit into an
> automated way of building large quantities of software which is how it
> usually, eventually needs to happen in any large organization.
I entirely empathise with that. Would it be fair to say, though, that it
could be equally argued the other way - that programmers might not like
being forced to use a particular set of tools (or rather, prohibited
from using certain tools) to make the build engineer's job easier?
An analogy could be: if you were a user of Thunderbird, but your
organisation forced you to use Outlook for e-mail because it makes their
admin easier, would you not be annoyed?
--
Oli
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Let's see Google work on my intranet.
See http://www.google.com/webmasters/. As for being able to get into
your Intranet I believe you can also purchase a Google Search Engine
Appliance. If price is an issue I see you conveniently neglected both
HtDig and "et. al.". IOW there are options but you refuse to explore them.
>
> So? I don't use Linux workstations. Windows workstations hooked to a
> Linux server.
Typical Windows Tunnel Vision. Granted *you* use Windows. But not
everybody does! And you take the attitude of screw anybody else but me.
| |
|
|
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
>
> Personally, I wouldn't say it's a massive stretch of that phrase.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here...
>
> Certainly, older versions did. With VS .NET, I'm not sure.
Kinda my point...
>
> Well, not really. It gives you a list of possible matches given the
> current context, which it narrows down as you type. As soon as its
> guess is equal to your intention, you press Tab. Alternatively, the
> parameter info pop-up just reminds you of the order and types of
> function parameters, and allows you to view overload options. It's
> hardly telling you to do something that you wouldn't have done if left
> to your own devices!
>
> Certainly no more than a search engine is telling you where to go when
> it returns its search results.
I think you make a good point here. About the only thing I can say is
that with the IDE it popped into your face therefore more suggestive -
especially to those who don't know what they are doing...
> Well, VS (my IDE of choice for C/C++/C# as you've probably gathered)
> can do pretty much all of those things (save the multiple language
> things). Can't speak for all IDEs, though.
Maybe. Let's review. How much disk and memory space does VS take? How
much does it cost?
>
> If it's FTP access, you probably can. I dunno about SSH.
OK. Let's test it. From the IDE edit the file
ftp://defaria.com/testfile.txt. It's available via anonymous ftp.
>
> Should've used the VBScript in Excel!
[Smacks head!] Of course! Why didn't I think to use a spreadsheet
calculator program to create a batch script! :-)
>
> Ditto for color and checks, and "Z"s where "S"s should be! At the risk
> of starting a transatlantic divide, remember which came first!!
Meaning that your version is old school and not further refined since it
was created? ;-)
(What? I like transatlantic divides! ;-) )
>
> Beautiful...
Glad you liked it.
>
> ^
> ^
> I think this may be irony epitomised!!
Not quite sure what you are stating here. Could it be your spelling of
epitomised? ;-)
>
> For extended posts like this, I usually spend a long time making sure
> that my arguments make as much sense as possible - but sometimes I
> forget that what makes sense in my head doesn't always make sense in a
> NG.
It follows therefore that checking non-extended posts should be, well,
just even easier!
>
> I entirely empathise with that. Would it be fair to say, though, that
> it could be equally argued the other way - that programmers might not
> like being forced to use a particular set of tools (or rather,
> prohibited from using certain tools) to make the build engineer's job
> easier?
You got a point. As in many things in life, a proper balance needs to be
struck and the pros and cons of both need to be investigated and judged
on their merit.
> An analogy could be: if you were a user of Thunderbird, but your
> organisation forced you to use Outlook for e-mail because it makes
> their admin easier, would you not be annoyed?
Funny you should mention that. I am a TB user. Most of my clients use
Outlook and Exchange. Would I be annoyed - you betcha. But I simply plug
into IMAP and everything is fine.
But unlike code and building my usage of email is largely read oriented
in that I read my email. I respond too and in that sense I write to it.
However neither of these usages breaks everybody else.
Email is simply text that conforms to a standard. Mine conforms to the
standard so everybody's happy.
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria said the following on 27/10/2005 20:06:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> Maybe. Let's review. How much disk and memory space does VS take? How
> much does it cost?
<Runs away, attempting to ignore the cost issue...>
>
> OK. Let's test it. From the IDE edit the file
> ftp://defaria.com/testfile.txt. It's available via anonymous ftp.
>
Interestingly, VS 6 can open it, whereas VS .NET can't. It's probably
trying to hook to it to monitor external changes, and failing, so gives up.
As for editing, my mistake - in my head I was combining the Windows
filesystem abstraction (i.e. being able to open files from FTP like they
were in a local directory), with VS's facility to manage and synchronise
projects on a web server.
>
>
> Not quite sure what you are stating here.
Your choice of homonym for "too" - i.e. I'll do it here *too*. ;)
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 05:59:
>
>
>
> However, not in this part of the thread - I was instead talking about
> navigating the source code itself, with class views and associated tools.
>
This thread is about using IDE's.
>
>
> See the argument below...
>
>
>
> Yes, I know that! And with HTML documentation, you don't need chm files;
> and with a hard-copy manual, you don't need HTML documentation; we could
> go on...
>
But HTML documentation cannot be as easily searched and indexed,
especially if it's on an intranet.
> By the logic of your argument, you should be using Notepad to do your
> coding!
>
Actually, I use TextPad for a lot of it.
> The point is that pressing a single button (for me at least), is much
> quicker and less distracting than pressing Alt+Tab, making sure the
> caret is in the search box, typing the function name, selecting the
> correct option, reading the definition in the help-file, temporarily
> memorising it (or copy-pasting it), and then pressing Alt+Tab to get
> back to the editor and then typing it in.
>
OK, to each his own. I would rather have the help files separate.
And BTW - generally I don't do Alt+Tab plus whatever. Most of the time
I have the help files up on a second computer and just switch keyboards.
> (Feel free to insert your own key combo instead of Alt+Tab!)
>
>
>
>
> Indeed, however this thread has become more generalised and seems to be
> about IDEs in general...
>
>
You've tried to make it that way, true. But this is about PHP IDE's.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jacob Atzen wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> That sounds impressive and quite contrary to most testimonials I've ever
> read. And quite opposite of the whole agile movement. How are you able
> to design everything up front? What methods do you use? I find it very
> hard to contain a complete design and anticipating all the problems that
> always show up?
>
Practice, Practice, Practice.
Just like you do when you're programming. Start with large blocks.
Break each large block down into smaller blocks. Keep going until you
have real little blocks :-).
Seriously - it is an art, and takes a lot of experience to do it well.
I can't say I'm great at it - there are much better designers out there
than I am. But I get along OK.
But you do take the project and break it up into functional parts.
Figure out what each part has to do (functionality) and what it needs to
do its job (interaction).
You won't go through it once and get everything exactly right. It's a
repetitive effort - you'll miss things the first time around and have to
add them the second time around. Keep going until you're fairly
comfortable with the design.
Even after programming starts you'll find problems in the design you
didn't see before - and/or the customer will change the requirements.
The advantage here is - when this happens, you can determine what you
need to change - and know EXACTLY what that will affect. Additionally,
you can estimate how much it will affect your project schedule - for
instance, a change to code that hasn't been written yet will probably
have a minor affect on the schedule. But if it requires major changes
to large parts of the code (less likely with good a good OO design), you
can estimate how much more time it will add to the project.
I find it easier to do with OO programming; there is less interaction
between objects than in functional programming. The isolation makes
things much easier.
Normally I start with the user interface and work back from there. If
it must interact with an existing database, of course I need to take
that into consideration. Otherwise the database is one of the last
things defined. Other people do it differently.
But it does take practice! And the more you do it, the better you'll be
at it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 18:16:
>
>
>
> http://www.google-store.com/applian...p?products_id=1
>
> Yours for just $2,995!
>
>
Windows help compiler - $0.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Gary L. Burnore 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:16:23 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Oli Filth wrote:
>
>This thread is about using IDE's.
>
>
>But HTML documentation cannot be as easily searched and indexed,
>especially if it's on an intranet.
Sure it can. Ever see the docs for Perl?
>
>Actually, I use TextPad for a lot of it.
Yep. That's a good tool. So too is vim.
>
>OK, to each his own. I would rather have the help files separate.
>And BTW - generally I don't do Alt+Tab plus whatever. Most of the time
>I have the help files up on a second computer and just switch keyboards.
I use two monitors, one cpu.
>
>You've tried to make it that way, true. But this is about PHP IDE's.
Komodo!
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
========================================
===================================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> See http://www.google.com/webmasters/. As for being able to get into
> your Intranet I believe you can also purchase a Google Search Engine
> Appliance. If price is an issue I see you conveniently neglected both
> HtDig and "et. al.". IOW there are options but you refuse to explore them.
>
No, I don't refuse to explore them. They're there; they work OK. But
HTML still isn't as good as Windows help files.
>
> Typical Windows Tunnel Vision. Granted *you* use Windows. But not
> everybody does! And you take the attitude of screw anybody else but me.
>
See, that's the difference between you and me.
I'm telling you HOW I WORK AND WHAT I USE. Unlike you, I AM NOT TELLING
YOU WHAT TO USE!
You keep telling me I should be using IDE's, HTML help files, etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I use what is best for me and on my projects.
No, it's not "Windows tunnel vision". It's what *I* use. You use
whatever you want.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 22:16:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> This thread is about using IDE's.
If you original point was actually related to a different branch of this
thread, you should've posted it as a reply in that branch, not a
completely unrelated branch...
>
> But HTML documentation cannot be as easily searched and indexed,
> especially if it's on an intranet.
Exactly - each "level" (hard-copy => HTML => CHM => "integrated" help)
adds a new layer of functionality. Context-sensitive help is the logical
conclusion of that progression.
> You've tried to make it that way, true. But this is about PHP IDE's.
Actually I didn't - the OP asked about PHP IDEs, which led onto a
discussion about the pros/cons of IDEs, which then led onto a discussion
about the supposed pros/cons of IDEs in general - the discussion diverged.
--
Oli
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 27/10/2005 20:06:
>
>
> <Runs away, attempting to ignore the cost issue...>
Exactly...! Have you seen my personal software budget? Any guesses?
>
> Interestingly, VS 6 can open it, whereas VS .NET can't. It's probably
> trying to hook to it to monitor external changes, and failing, so
> gives up.
So then why didn't you actually edit it? It has the same contents as
what I originally put there. Now change it. No cheating either by
downloading it, updating it and uploading it in steps - do it directly
from the editor...
> As for editing, my mistake - in my head I was combining the Windows
> filesystem abstraction (i.e. being able to open files from FTP like
> they were in a local directory), with VS's facility to manage and
> synchronise projects on a web server.
Hmmm... That didn't exactly parse for me. Can you or can't you edit
ftp://defaria.com/testfile.txt from your IDE?
>
> Your choice of homonym for "too" - i.e. I'll do it here *too*. ;)
Ah, I got another one for that! Ode to Spell Checker
<https://defaria.com/Jokes/OdeToSpellChecker.php>
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> But HTML documentation cannot be as easily searched and indexed,
> especially if it's on an intranet.
Ah but they surely can, easily and cheaply with HtDig.
> And BTW - generally I don't do Alt+Tab plus whatever. Most of the
> time I have the help files up on a second computer and just switch
> keyboards.
Ah now that's convenient! :-)
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-27, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No, I don't refuse to explore them. They're there; they work OK. But
> HTML still isn't as good as Windows help files.
Really? How so? Tell me when you need to research some random odd topic
do you use Google or do you use some sort of all inclusive Windows help
file?
(Reminds me of the adage: When all you have is a hammer then every
problem looks like a nail!)
>
> See, that's the difference between you and me.
>
> I'm telling you HOW I WORK AND WHAT I USE. Unlike you, I AM NOT
> TELLING YOU WHAT TO USE!
I'm telling you how to play nice with others. If all you ever do is
create code in isolation and never in a group use any damn thing you
want. But when you have the attitude of "this is how I work - works for
me - and who gives a rat's ass about my coworker who is working on the
same app, needs the same documentation but doesn't use Windows" then I
have a problem with it.
> You keep telling me I should be using IDE's, HTML help files, etc.
> Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Yes, wrong, wrong, wrong as in *you are wrong!!!* I didn't tell you do
use an IDE. I'm the guy saying IDEs are not that good. Remember?
> I use what is best for me and on my projects.
Then you must work in isolation. But if you want to work with others you
should at least show a little sensitivity to the fact that they have
different requirements, needs and desires and you should strive to use
technologies that benefit all equally.
> No, it's not "Windows tunnel vision". It's what *I* use. You use
> whatever you want.
Of course it's a Windows tunnel vision issue. You have be seduced by
"It's my PC and I do what I want with it - others be damned". Hey I have
no problem with that. Just that you might as well unplug from the
network and go off to your corner with your machine and code your
projects. Most of the rest of us want to participate in jointly
developed, collaborative work. As such we need common ground not "you do
it your way and I'll do it mine" (That is unless you can assure that
both ways will work by using some common standard...)
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 9:55 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 22:16:
>
>
>
> If you original point was actually related to a different branch of this
> thread, you should've posted it as a reply in that branch, not a
> completely unrelated branch...
>
No, my original point was related to the original part of this thread.
You're trying to change that.
>
>
>
> Exactly - each "level" (hard-copy => HTML => CHM => "integrated" help)
> adds a new layer of functionality. Context-sensitive help is the logical
> conclusion of that progression.
>
Yep - and each level brings a new layer of complexity.
Context-sensitive help is not always needed - unless you're lazy or
incompetent.
>
>
>
> Actually I didn't - the OP asked about PHP IDEs, which led onto a
> discussion about the pros/cons of IDEs, which then led onto a discussion
> about the supposed pros/cons of IDEs in general - the discussion diverged.
>
>
Yep. You have tried to make this discussion diverge. I've *always*
been talking about PHP IDE's. You're the one who keeps trying to change
the subject.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 9:55 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Ah but they surely can, easily and cheaply with HtDig.
>
No, it's not as easy as Windows help files. Also not as fast.
HTML is good for a lot of things - but it's NOT the answer to life, the
universe and everything!
>
>
> Ah now that's convenient! :-)
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-27, 9:55 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Really? How so? Tell me when you need to research some random odd topic
> do you use Google or do you use some sort of all inclusive Windows help
> file?
>
Irrelevant. We're talking about documentation for a project, not some
"random odd topic".
> (Reminds me of the adage: When all you have is a hammer then every
> problem looks like a nail!)
>
You said it. You're the one trying to force everyone to use an IDE!
>
> I'm telling you how to play nice with others. If all you ever do is
> create code in isolation and never in a group use any damn thing you
> want. But when you have the attitude of "this is how I work - works for
> me - and who gives a rat's ass about my coworker who is working on the
> same app, needs the same documentation but doesn't use Windows" then I
> have a problem with it.
>
And how is using a text editor not "playing nice with others"? Many
projects I've worked on use TextPad or something similar.
And when I say "This is how I work" - I mean this is how the projects I
manage work. Each person is free to use his/her favorite
editor/ide/whatever. I don't force a single IDE on anyone.
>
> Yes, wrong, wrong, wrong as in *you are wrong!!!* I didn't tell you do
> use an IDE. I'm the guy saying IDEs are not that good. Remember?
>
The incompetent trying to force the more capable to conform.
>
> Then you must work in isolation. But if you want to work with others you
> should at least show a little sensitivity to the fact that they have
> different requirements, needs and desires and you should strive to use
> technologies that benefit all equally.
>
No, I've worked on some very large projects - 100+ programmers, for
instance.
>
> Of course it's a Windows tunnel vision issue. You have be seduced by
> "It's my PC and I do what I want with it - others be damned". Hey I have
> no problem with that. Just that you might as well unplug from the
> network and go off to your corner with your machine and code your
> projects. Most of the rest of us want to participate in jointly
> developed, collaborative work. As such we need common ground not "you do
> it your way and I'll do it mine" (That is unless you can assure that
> both ways will work by using some common standard...)
>
Not at all. It's the way the whole project works.
Get with it. There are a lot of people in this world who are more
knowledgeable and competent than you. And a large percentage of those
people agree with me - use what works best for you.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> So? What does that have to do with the original topic - whether an
> IDE is better than a text editor or not?
It makes more of a team player when working on large projects with many
people. IDEs make you think of your your own little environment, which
then becomes specialized and only work in one very specific situation.
> But to respond to your comment. HTML help is fine - but do you have a
> search engine which can search all the web pages?
Actually yes I do. HtDig will indeed to that.
> I know there are some out there - but the free ones which will run on
> an intranet aren't that great a quality, while the good quality ones
> are expensive.
Well then you've never set one up and used it. Granted any search engine
is only as good as the quality of the stuff it searches...
> Yes, there are some Unix projects out there. And there are developers
> who use Unix. I use Unix, also. But virtually all of my development
> is done on Windows with a NFS mount from the Linux machine. It's then
> an easy job to make the project. And although I don't do much Unix
> programming, I don't think I've seen ANY projects which don't have
> Windows on the majority of the desktops.
Who ever said majority?!? You did - not I. I merely stated that there
may be some people who are not on Windows.
As for free Windows web search engines
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...:en-US:official
And as long as you already have Unix and are already accessing it,
surely you can put your docs there and use the Unix web server and HtDig
to provide documentation for all - instead of alienating those simply
because they didn't choose your chosen desktop - Windows. (BTW My chosen
desktop is Windows too! But I bear in mind others, am cognizant and
relatively fluent in Unix/Linux and I have seen the light and utility in
not locking people into one OS over the other).
> But I'm sure there are some - and the Windows help files don't work
> there. But they work for every project in which I've been involved.
Shows your lack of foresight! Hey it works for me, and everybody done my
isle so who cares. There are reasons why it's bad to lock yourself into
a proprietary OS and proprietary formats and good to embrace open
standards. Just look at the web! It works for Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac,
and a host of other OSes, all relatively the same.
--
A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> Then you're Project Manager is not managing the project properly.
Then my Project Managers, from over 25 years - at companies as big and
diverse as HP, Sun, Cisco, Amerquest, Broadcom and a plethora of others
(look up my resume...) have all not been managing their projects
properly. This does say something very loudly and clearly - what you
describe is definitely not the norm. Indeed what you describe is pie in
the sky rarity!
Mind you I agree with the philosophy and personally that's the way I
would do it. However, and again, that is not the way I've ever seen it done.
Finally, my Project Managers as of late are not really projects managers
as per se, rather they are clients.
> I learned about project management when I was working for IBM back in
> the 80's.
Break out the blue suit and tie... ;-)
> Since then I've been both a programmer and a PM. When I've been a PM,
> the documentation is complete long before programming starts (and yes,
> I get the programmers involved in the design). And I've been a
> programmer on projects where the design is done properly. Every one
> was completed on time
Given enough time that is. Unfortunately businesses do not really have
that kind of time anymore. Models like the Open Source model beat the
pants off of the structured design everything first then start coding
methodologies of the past...
> and within budget, given reasonable time and budgetary constraints.
Aye there's the rub - "reasonable time". Which is way longer than is
acceptable these days. Why do you think IBM fell from on high? Because
different more flexible and a lot faster ways of doing things developed
and IBM didn't keep pace. The only reason IBM is back at all is that
they have actively changed their culture and stringentness.
> And change orders were handled by modifying the design - which showed
> exactly how it would affect other parts of the project.
>
> I've also worked on ones where PM wasn't properly done. Some were on
> time, but most were late. They also had more bugs and change orders
> were harder to implement.
The track records of the big companies has not agreed with your assessment.
>
> I've heard that before. But all but the smallest projects benefit
> from a proper design.
Yes but then your contract expires early and your out on the street
begging for food. You know those grandiose ideas and methodologies look
great on paper. But the real world and real business constraints always
seem to get in way. As a contract and a businessman myself I strive to
keep the customer happy and they are always right, etc... Real world is,
while proper design, etc. is all nice, it don't happen much.
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp no one would eat?
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Windows help compiler - $0.
You forgot to include the cost of Windows itself!
(BTW Linux is free - yeah companies sell Linux but what they are selling
really is support not the software itself - IOW you can get Linux for free).
--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> Irrelevant. We're talking about documentation for a project, not some
> "random odd topic".
Not irrelevant. Google searching billions of pages - why more than
whatever documentation you or I have ever produced - and does so quite
well. The same can be applied to your own documentation...
>
> You said it. You're the one trying to force everyone to use an IDE!
Boy you are really a moron aren't you? I suggest you go back and do a
little research there bud. If you did I'm sure you would quickly find
that it is not I who is trying to force anybody to using any IDE. I'm
the guy who's against IDEs and I mentioned it last post. You, however
didn't even read that or your comprehension skills are all shot. Let me
make it clear *I DO NOT ENDORSE THE CONCEPT OF USING IDES - IN FACT I
SAY THE OPPOSITE!!!* I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this
subject. Now that you've just proven that you are a moron wiggle out of
that one!
>
> And how is using a text editor not "playing nice with others"? Many
> projects I've worked on use TextPad or something similar.
Huh? Are you really this dense? If you produce MS only help files for
your documented function calls then you have alienated anybody who
doesn't use Windows. Is this concept really that difficult for you to
grasp?!?
> And when I say "This is how I work" - I mean this is how the projects
> I manage work. Each person is free to use his/her favorite
> editor/ide/whatever. I don't force a single IDE on anyone.
Nor do I, even though you still haven't managed to understand that. We
weren't talking about editors or IDEs for that matter. We were talking
about your proprietary formated MS Help files...
>
> The incompetent trying to force the more capable to conform.
Dude you're just way off base here...
>
> No, I've worked on some very large projects - 100+ programmers, for
> instance.
And not a single one of them used anything other than Windows? You sound
like just another MS drone to me...
>
> Not at all. It's the way the whole project works.
Now who's forcing compliance?
> Get with it. There are a lot of people in this world who are more
> knowledgeable and competent than you. And a large percentage of those
> people agree with me - use what works best for you.
I'm all for using what works best for you. However when parts of what
you are working on are shared by others, then to assume the mindset that
everybody else works like you is just plain wrong. You do this when you
admit to using Windows Help files which admittedly only work on Windows
right? Ergo that shared documentation is not usable by anybody who
doesn't use Windows. At this point that other person has two options:
Either user Windows like you (i.e. break the rule of use what works best
for him) or not be able to share that knowledge. The only other way out
of that dilemma is if the documentation you produced is not intended for
everybody - i.e. you are working in isolation. Which is it?
--
Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory. - Oscar Wilde
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> No, it's not as easy as Windows help files. Also not as fast.
Google searches billions of web pages in seconds. When a Windows help
file can achieve that same speed give me a ring.
> HTML is good for a lot of things - but it's NOT the answer to life,
> the universe and everything!
You're just afraid of it because you don't understand it...
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. - Thomas J.
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
| |
|
| You people are insane! You are saying pretty much the same thing in
different ways. But the manner in which you do it, would freaking bring
out the hostility in any saint. Sad.
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Not irrelevant. Google searching billions of pages - why more than
> whatever documentation you or I have ever produced - and does so quite
> well. The same can be applied to your own documentation...
>
>
> Boy you are really a moron aren't you? I suggest you go back and do a
> little research there bud. If you did I'm sure you would quickly find
> that it is not I who is trying to force anybody to using any IDE. I'm
> the guy who's against IDEs and I mentioned it last post. You, however
> didn't even read that or your comprehension skills are all shot. Let me
> make it clear *I DO NOT ENDORSE THE CONCEPT OF USING IDES - IN FACT I
> SAY THE OPPOSITE!!!* I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this
> subject. Now that you've just proven that you are a moron wiggle out of
> that one!
>
>
> Huh? Are you really this dense? If you produce MS only help files for
> your documented function calls then you have alienated anybody who
> doesn't use Windows. Is this concept really that difficult for you to
> grasp?!?
>
>
> Nor do I, even though you still haven't managed to understand that. We
> weren't talking about editors or IDEs for that matter. We were talking
> about your proprietary formated MS Help files...
>
>
> Dude you're just way off base here...
>
>
> And not a single one of them used anything other than Windows? You sound
> like just another MS drone to me...
>
>
> Now who's forcing compliance?
>
>
> I'm all for using what works best for you. However when parts of what
> you are working on are shared by others, then to assume the mindset that
> everybody else works like you is just plain wrong. You do this when you
> admit to using Windows Help files which admittedly only work on Windows
> right? Ergo that shared documentation is not usable by anybody who
> doesn't use Windows. At this point that other person has two options:
> Either user Windows like you (i.e. break the rule of use what works best
> for him) or not be able to share that knowledge. The only other way out
> of that dilemma is if the documentation you produced is not intended for
> everybody - i.e. you are working in isolation. Which is it?
> --
> Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory. - Oscar Wilde
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
| Ramon wrote:
> You people are insane! You are saying pretty much the same thing in
> different ways. But the manner in which you do it, would freaking
> bring out the hostility in any saint. Sad.
I ain't no saint. Never claimed to be. If you don't like it then ignore
the thread.
--
Don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more. -
John Prine
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-28, 7:56 am |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 28/10/2005 04:28:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> No, my original point was related to the original part of this thread.
> You're trying to change that.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse...
If your post was in response to the original part of the thread, then
you should've posted it as a reply there. If you post it as a reply to
an unrelated branch (i.e. one that digressed, like NG discussions tend
to do), you can hardly be surprised when someone says "What the hell?
How does that relate to what I just said?".
>
> Yep - and each level brings a new layer of complexity. Context-sensitive
> help is not always needed - unless you're lazy or incompetent.
You're right, if it's *needed*, in the sense of "can't live without it".
However, IMO, it's always nice to have a tool which saves time, and
minimises distraction from the task in hand - actually putting code into
the editor.
Even basics like auto-indent and syntax highlighting aren't *needed*,
but I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to work without them.
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> It makes more of a team player when working on large projects with many
> people. IDEs make you think of your your own little environment, which
> then becomes specialized and only work in one very specific situation.
>
So you're saying IDE's are not the way to go? After all, they only work
in very specific situations. Text editors work in all situations.
>
>
> Actually yes I do. HtDig will indeed to that.
>
Yep, I've seen it. It requires more maintenance than Windows help
files, for instance. You need a web server, after updating pages you
need to have HtDlg respider the pages. And you need to bring up a
browser to use it.
Windows help files are more responsive since they don't require server
resources (other than a shared directory for the help files). They run
completely on the user's desktop. Compiling the help files is easier
and faster than spidering pages, especially as the project grows.
>
>
> Well then you've never set one up and used it. Granted any search engine
> is only as good as the quality of the stuff it searches...
>
Sure I have. And it's impressive for some things. But not for everything!
>
>
> Who ever said majority?!? You did - not I. I merely stated that there
> may be some people who are not on Windows.
>
Sure. But not on the projects I work on. Big difference. Note that I
don't dictate the use of windows - it's the environment which is already
there before I come in.
> As for free Windows web search engines
> http://www.google.com/search?q=free...:en-US:official
>
>
> And as long as you already have Unix and are already accessing it,
> surely you can put your docs there and use the Unix web server and HtDig
> to provide documentation for all - instead of alienating those simply
> because they didn't choose your chosen desktop - Windows. (BTW My chosen
> desktop is Windows too! But I bear in mind others, am cognizant and
> relatively fluent in Unix/Linux and I have seen the light and utility in
> not locking people into one OS over the other).
>
Sure can. I can even put the Windows help files on a shared directory
in Unix. Or I can put them on a Windows server. Or anyplace else where
they can be shared.
And again - it's not *MY* chosen desktop. It's the one already being used.
In the real-life business world (at least in the U.S.), there are very
few people who *don't* use Windows.
>
>
> Shows your lack of foresight! Hey it works for me, and everybody done my
> isle so who cares. There are reasons why it's bad to lock yourself into
> a proprietary OS and proprietary formats and good to embrace open
> standards. Just look at the web! It works for Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac,
> and a host of other OSes, all relatively the same.
Yep. And see my arguments above.
This is a closed environment. The systems are already using Windows.
There is *no* reason not to use Windows help files!
Remember - I'm stating what *I* use on *my* projects. It works for me.
I am *not* telling you what you should use.
Don't tell me what I should use. You don't know my customers. You
don't know my environment. And you don't know my needs.
I know all of these. Who's in a better situation to determine what my
needs are? Let me clue you - it is NOT YOU!
Just typical of "I know your job better than you do!".
Forget it. This conversation is at an end.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 28/10/2005 04:28:
>
>
>
> At the risk of flogging a dead horse...
> If your post was in response to the original part of the thread, then
> you should've posted it as a reply there. If you post it as a reply to
> an unrelated branch (i.e. one that digressed, like NG discussions tend
> to do), you can hardly be surprised when someone says "What the hell?
> How does that relate to what I just said?".
>
You should read back through this branch. I did respond to the original
part of this thread. Since then you've tried to change the direction.
>
>
>
> You're right, if it's *needed*, in the sense of "can't live without it".
> However, IMO, it's always nice to have a tool which saves time, and
> minimises distraction from the task in hand - actually putting code into
> the editor.
>
That's your opinion, which is fine. I find the auto code completion to
be a distraction.
I'm a touch typist. There are lots of times I'm typing while looking at
the doc - not the screen. So when the editor auto completes code for
me, I need to backspace and re-edit the code.
Additionally, when I have to choose from a list of functions, I find it
takes longer for me to stop typing, select the function from the list,
then continue typing than it does to just type the function name myself.
> Even basics like auto-indent and syntax highlighting aren't *needed*,
> but I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to work without them.
>
>
I agree the auto indent is nice, which is why I use textpad.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> Google searches billions of web pages in seconds. When a Windows help
> file can achieve that same speed give me a ring.
>
So? What does Google searching billions of pages (using hundreds of
servers) have to do with it?
>
>
> You're just afraid of it because you don't understand it...
I understand it completely. I've probably been writing HTML longer than
you have - since 1992 or so. And I continue to write HTML as well as XML.
And no - it is NOT the answer to live, the universe and everything!
But you obviously have tunnel vision. You think your way is the best
for everyone. My statement is that it is not. And the way I do it
works best for me and the projects I work on.
Sorry. This conversation is at an end.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> Then my Project Managers, from over 25 years - at companies as big and
> diverse as HP, Sun, Cisco, Amerquest, Broadcom and a plethora of others
> (look up my resume...) have all not been managing their projects
> properly. This does say something very loudly and clearly - what you
> describe is definitely not the norm. Indeed what you describe is pie in
> the sky rarity!
>
Yep, I find that very common in the business world today. Just because
you're big doesn't mean you can manage projects properly. I saw the
same thing when I worked for IBM. It's one of the reasons I left IBM.
They taught me project management, and I worked on a couple of projects
where it was used quite effectively. Then I got stuck on one which was
doomed to fail because it wasn't being managed properly. I had the
chance to get out, so I took it.
What percentage of these projects were late, over budget and/or never
got finished at all? And how many were finished but didn't provide the
functionality required? Quite frankly, the result is a surprisingly
high percentage.
This, BTW, includes the project I was on when I left IBM. It was
supposed to be a six month project. It actually should have taken less
than that. But after two years it was canceled.
But some companies are seeing the light. And those projects are
succeeding. They are on time, within budget and successful.
> Mind you I agree with the philosophy and personally that's the way I
> would do it. However, and again, that is not the way I've ever seen it
> done.
>
That's where as a consultant I have an advantage. If the customer wants
me, it's on my terms. And my track record shows I can get the work done.
> Finally, my Project Managers as of late are not really projects managers
> as per se, rather they are clients.
>
Clients are not project managers. They are clients. Two entirely
different things!
>
>
> Break out the blue suit and tie... ;-)
>
You forgot the white shirt! :-)
>
>
> Given enough time that is. Unfortunately businesses do not really have
> that kind of time anymore. Models like the Open Source model beat the
> pants off of the structured design everything first then start coding
> methodologies of the past...
>
Proper project management *shortens* the time it takes to complete a
project - the bigger the project, the more time it saves.
When the design is done ahead of time, there is less rewriting because
other code changed. And every time you have to rewrite the code, you
increase the chance of errors creeping into the code, which means more
test/diagnosis/correction time. It also increases the number of errors
which can make it to the customer.
>
>
> Aye there's the rub - "reasonable time". Which is way longer than is
> acceptable these days. Why do you think IBM fell from on high? Because
> different more flexible and a lot faster ways of doing things developed
> and IBM didn't keep pace. The only reason IBM is back at all is that
> they have actively changed their culture and stringentness.
>
All the more reason to do proper management.
And no, IBM didn't keep pace. They didn't realize the effect their PC
would have on the rest of the world. They made major missteps in their
target audience. They did a huge amount of things wrong.
>
>
> The track records of the big companies has not agreed with your assessment.
>
As I said - just because you're big doesn't mean you do it right. And
the track record of the big companies has shown that it has been done.
I used to do a lot of training - both in programming and project
management. Most of my customers were from the Fortune 1000 list. And
virtually every class where I asked if they had projects which were
overdue, over budget, etc., I had people raise their hands. And the
common thread was that the projects were not being managed.
I actually had a manager tell me one time "If my programmers aren't
writing code, they aren't being productive." He completely ignored the
fact that just because they were writing code *did not* mean they were
being productive! It meant they were writing code.
But without direction, the manager had no idea of the code would ever be
used in a project or not. And if it was not, they weren't very
productive, were they?
It's why I get programmers involved with the design phase. They are
helping, and more importantly, they are getting a better feel for the
project as a whole. And they are being productive - they are helping to
produce the design spec they will eventually write code for.
And when it comes time to write the code, they do it more quickly and
with fewer errors because they don't have to keep going back and
rewriting it.
>
>
> Yes but then your contract expires early and your out on the street
> begging for food. You know those grandiose ideas and methodologies look
> great on paper. But the real world and real business constraints always
> seem to get in way. As a contract and a businessman myself I strive to
> keep the customer happy and they are always right, etc... Real world is,
> while proper design, etc. is all nice, it don't happen much.
>
>
I admit, when I first started consulting, I was hungry a fair amount of
the time. But never since then. In fact, I've turned down work.
Success breeds success - and demand.
The only "real world and real business constraints" here is the thinking
of management. You need to convince them that proper management means a
more successful project. This takes proven experience, knowledge and
belief in yourself, amongst other things. And most importantly, it
takes skill in dealing with the customer.
Probably the best lesson I ever learned was to walk away from a bad
contract instead of taking it, no matter how hungry I was.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> You forgot to include the cost of Windows itself!
>
> (BTW Linux is free - yeah companies sell Linux but what they are selling
> really is support not the software itself - IOW you can get Linux for
> free).
Already on the system. No additional charge.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Not irrelevant. Google searching billions of pages - why more than
> whatever documentation you or I have ever produced - and does so quite
> well. The same can be applied to your own documentation...
>
Completely irrelevant. Google has hundreds of servers with databases,
etc. If I had the resources of Google, it would be a different story.
>
> Boy you are really a moron aren't you? I suggest you go back and do a
> little research there bud. If you did I'm sure you would quickly find
> that it is not I who is trying to force anybody to using any IDE. I'm
> the guy who's against IDEs and I mentioned it last post. You, however
> didn't even read that or your comprehension skills are all shot. Let me
> make it clear *I DO NOT ENDORSE THE CONCEPT OF USING IDES - IN FACT I
> SAY THE OPPOSITE!!!* I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this
> subject. Now that you've just proven that you are a moron wiggle out of
> that one!
>
My mistake, then. I have you mixed up with someone else.
>
> Huh? Are you really this dense? If you produce MS only help files for
> your documented function calls then you have alienated anybody who
> doesn't use Windows. Is this concept really that difficult for you to
> grasp?!?
>
Let's see. It's internal documentation, and everyone on the project
already uses Windows. Who am I alienating?
>
> Nor do I, even though you still haven't managed to understand that. We
> weren't talking about editors or IDEs for that matter. We were talking
> about your proprietary formated MS Help files...
>
OK. But as I said - it works for me.
>
> Dude you're just way off base here...
>
Again, my apologies. Too many subthreads going here.
>
> And not a single one of them used anything other than Windows? You sound
> like just another MS drone to me...
>
Not since the late 90's. Before that I did a lot of OS/2 work.
I am definitely *not* an MS drone. The fact of life is - in the
business world in the U.S., most of the users (even programmers) use
Windows. Linux has made some inroads - but not a lot. And even those
who have Linux generally also have Windows. There are very few
Linux-only users out there.
Don't get me wrong - I wish there were more Linux users out there. I
like it myself - I have a couple of Debian machines here and a Debian
VPS at a hosting company. I like Linux. But Windows is still my main
desktop because there are so many more programs out there for it.
Yes, there are some inroads being made. StarOffice, for instance, is a
big one. As there gets to be more programs for Linux I expect to see
its usage grow.
>
> Now who's forcing compliance?
>
I'm using what's already there. And using Windows help files when
everyone is already using Windows is no more "forcing compliance" than
using HTML help files is.
At some point you need to make some project-wide decisions. This is one
of mine.
>
> I'm all for using what works best for you. However when parts of what
> you are working on are shared by others, then to assume the mindset that
> everybody else works like you is just plain wrong. You do this when you
> admit to using Windows Help files which admittedly only work on Windows
> right? Ergo that shared documentation is not usable by anybody who
> doesn't use Windows. At this point that other person has two options:
> Either user Windows like you (i.e. break the rule of use what works best
> for him) or not be able to share that knowledge. The only other way out
> of that dilemma is if the documentation you produced is not intended for
> everybody - i.e. you are working in isolation. Which is it?
> --
> Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory. - Oscar Wilde
Again, not a problem. They're already using Windows.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> So you're saying IDE's are not the way to go? After all, they only
> work in very specific situations. Text editors work in all situations.
Ding, ding, ding! You win a prize! You finally got it (only after
several posts directly stating this!). I'm an XEmacs guy. Is that an
IDE? :-)
>
> Yep, I've seen it. It requires more maintenance than Windows help
> files, for instance.
Like?
> You need a web server,
Most people/companies already have a web server. Web servers like Apache
are also free (and have much utility BTW).
> after updating pages you need to have HtDlg respider the pages.
One word: cron! Next invalid assumption...
> And you need to bring up a browser to use it.
You need to bring up Windows help viewer to view it. Let me ask you a
question: Don't you usually have a web browser running?!?
> Windows help files are more responsive since they don't require server
> resources (other than a shared directory for the help files).
Oh come on! You're actually gonna try to use a "It takes 1/2 a
nanosecond more" argument?!? Exactly how much resources do you think it
takes to serve up a web page? Balance that with the fact that your
documentation is now available company wide, which promotes
communication between team members. You have a very weak argument here dude.
> They run completely on the user's desktop.
So what?!?
> Compiling the help files is easier and faster than spidering pages,
> especially as the project grows.
And yet this help file is only available on your desktop! So how do
others view it? Oh so you pass it around, where you can then get
versionitis never mind all that useless copying...
>
> Sure I have. And it's impressive for some things. But not for
> everything!
You still haven't demonstrated how it is not impressive for what we are
discussing here. You just like your windows help files and cannot see
any other way to do it because it's foreign to you. Let me ask you this:
Major applications, software and languages from Apache, Perl, PHP, and
many other applications use the web to document their products and
languages. Now if your method is so superior why didn't they choose
Windows Help Files?
>
> Sure. But not on the projects I work on.
It's that the very definition of tunnel vision.
> Big difference. Note that I don't dictate the use of windows - it's
> the environment which is already there before I come in.
Again, my premise is that there are some people who are not using
Windows who will have a problem with what you propose. Additionally, how
do your Windows help files get around to other developers? You email
them (thus copying them and multiple copies often equals multiple old
copies of incompatible versions)? You put them on a share somewhere and
people reference them (and possibly copy them - after all you don't want
to take up precious server resources...) again facing the problem of
multiple copies and versions floating about. Also, how do you search a
Windows help file? Yeah I know, you fire up Windows help and use it's
facilities. But how do you search *through* multiple Windows help files?
Oh what? You can't. Thought so...
>
> Sure can. I can even put the Windows help files on a shared directory
> in Unix. Or I can put them on a Windows server. Or anyplace else
> where they can be shared.
And what does a Unix user do after they get this Windows help file?
Also see above. You complain about using server resources then use them
yourself! Your arguments are disingenuous at best!
> And again - it's not *MY* chosen desktop. It's the one already being
> used.
>
> In the real-life business world (at least in the U.S.), there are very
> few people who *don't* use Windows.
Well then you haven't been around. I can assure you in the HP Language
Labs where we produced compiler products for HP-UX, people used HP
Workstations running HP-UX not Windows. Ditto for the kernel lab and
other places. And we are not talking 1 or 2 people rather hundreds.
In Sun in the area where I was contracted, it was actually forbidden to
connect a Windows PC to the corporate network!
>
> Yep. And see my arguments above.
What? You still lack foresight. You think only in terms of Windows.
> This is a closed environment. The systems are already using Windows.
> There is *no* reason not to use Windows help files!
Sure there is. I gave you some. But then again it took at least 3 posts
for you to get that I wasn't advocating IDEs at all. I wonder how many
posts it will take this time before you actually read and think about
what I posted. You can only search Windows help files one at a time -
not index a set of them.
> Remember - I'm stating what *I* use on *my* projects. It works for
> me. I am *not* telling you what you should use.
Neither am I! I'm just saying your have tunnel vision because you do not
look beyond your close little environment. I'm not saying don't do it!
I'm saying I wouldn't do that.
> Don't tell me what I should use.
I didn't. I told you what I would use and what I see as limiting your
vision.
> You don't know my customers.
How do you know that?
> You don't know my environment.
I have a pretty good picture though.
> And you don't know my needs.
And I wasn't talking about *your* needs. I was talking about the
possible needs of others - not you!
> I know all of these. Who's in a better situation to determine what my
> needs are? Let me clue you - it is NOT YOU!
Tunnel vision, tunnel vision, tunnel vision. It's all about you isn't it!
> Just typical of "I know your job better than you do!".
>
> Forget it. This conversation is at an end.
Great!
--
Yesterday I parked my car in a tow-away zone...when I came back the
entire area was missing...
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> So? What does Google searching billions of pages (using hundreds of
> servers) have to do with it?
Your claim is that web searches are not as fast as searching a Windows
help file. The fact that web searches such as Google searches billions
of pages in seconds and a Windows help file could never come close to
that search speed given a similar sized set of things to search (in fact
I doubt it could even attempt to do the job). It is directly relevant
and directly contradicts your assertion!
>
> I understand it completely. I've probably been writing HTML longer
> than you have - since 1992 or so.
Ah your wrong. I was writing HTML back then too. Next invalid assumption...
> And I continue to write HTML as well as XML.
>
> And no - it is NOT the answer to live, the universe and everything!
How could it be the answer to "live"?!? :-)
BTW I never said it was. Of course that's irrelevant to you, cause your
talking out of your ass anyway...
> But you obviously have tunnel vision.
How do you figure? Wait, never mind. It's sure to be some other invalid
assumption... Besides didn't you say this conversation was over. Why you
still talking then?
> You think your way is the best for everyone.
I never said that either. All I said was that your solution was limited.
I didn't say that my solution was the best, rather it's just a solution.
There are others....
> My statement is that it is not. And the way I do it works best for me
> and the projects I work on.
Again, it's all about you.
> Sorry. This conversation is at an end.
Again? Gee wonkers Wally!
--
Disco dancing is just the steady thump of a giant moron knocking in an
endless nail. - Clive James, London Sunday Observer 17 Dec 78
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Yep, I find that very common in the business world today.
What does that say to you?
> Just because you're big doesn't mean you can manage projects properly.
At least by your definition. Granted some places have bad project
management. But many of them work just fine in ways other than what you
are espousing.
>
> Clients are not project managers. They are clients. Two entirely
> different things!
Didn't I just say that!
>
> Proper project management *shortens* the time it takes to complete a
> project - the bigger the project, the more time it saves.
Agreed. Proper project management is a good thing. Is proper project
management where ever last stitch of documentation is written before the
first line of code is written. In my experience no, that is not the
case. Prototyping is more effective.
> When the design is done ahead of time, there is less rewriting because
> other code changed. And every time you have to rewrite the code, you
> increase the chance of errors creeping into the code, which means more
> test/diagnosis/correction time. It also increases the number of
> errors which can make it to the customer.
There are many people who disagree with your theory.
>
> All the more reason to do proper management.
>
> And no, IBM didn't keep pace. They didn't realize the effect their PC
> would have on the rest of the world. They made major missteps in
> their target audience. They did a huge amount of things wrong.
What I'm saying is that it's similar to a 50% off sale. What is a 50%
off sale when the seller first marks it up 100%. Answer it's a 50% gain
for the seller! You can scope out the project for 1 year and manage it
effectively and even up in at 11 months. Or you can get cracking at be
done in 7 months. How is claiming that this "proper project management"
saved 1 month of development time helpful?
>
> As I said - just because you're big doesn't mean you do it right. And
> the track record of the big companies has shown that it has been done.
I agree. Just because you're big doesn't mean that you do it right.
However, again, every company that I have been, including big, named
companies, operate similarly and do not operate the way you say you do.
That says something. Had I just said "Well none of the companies I've
worked at do it that way" you'd say I must have worked at bad companies.
I don't think that I have.
> I used to do a lot of training - both in programming and project
> management.
Ah, those that do do, those that can't teach... :-)
> Most of my customers were from the Fortune 1000 list. And virtually
> every class where I asked if they had projects which were overdue,
> over budget, etc., I had people raise their hands. And the common
> thread was that the projects were not being managed.
Projects need to be managed. Granted. I thought we were discussing the
way they are managed. Specifically I thought we were talking about the
requirement to have all the documentation in before coding. In practice
that rarely happens. Why is that? Just everybody doing it wrong? I doubt it!
> I actually had a manager tell me one time "If my programmers aren't
> writing code, they aren't being productive." He completely ignored
> the fact that just because they were writing code *did not* mean they
> were being productive! It meant they were writing code.
Actually he is correct and you are wrong. A programmers job is to write
code. I designers job is to design stuff. The programmers should be
writing code or they are not doing their job - period. They should be
writing code that was designed by the designer last month, for example.
> But without direction, the manager had no idea of the code would ever
> be used in a project or not. And if it was not, they weren't very
> productive, were they?
You assume that they are writing code for something that has not been
designed yet. Next invalid assumption!
> It's why I get programmers involved with the design phase. They are
> helping, and more importantly, they are getting a better feel for the
> project as a whole. And they are being productive - they are helping
> to produce the design spec they will eventually write code for.
Granted, most programmers are not only coders, they are designers too.
> And when it comes time to write the code, they do it more quickly and
> with fewer errors because they don't have to keep going back and
> rewriting it.
That's just what unexperienced programmers do. They need that helping hand.
>
> I admit, when I first started consulting, I was hungry a fair amount
> of the time. But never since then. In fact, I've turned down work.
> Success breeds success - and demand.
A proper consultant does what the contract requires. If the contract
does not require a large over management of a project then you shouldn't
be doing that. If the contract merely wants you to write code then you
write code. You do what you client wants.
> The only "real world and real business constraints" here is the
> thinking of management.
Yeah right! Just ignore reality. It doesn't really exist.
> You need to convince them that proper management means a more
> successful project. This takes proven experience, knowledge and
> belief in yourself, amongst other things. And most importantly, it
> takes skill in dealing with the customer.
So you sell them a bill of goods. Great. I'm sure it makes you money.
> Probably the best lesson I ever learned was to walk away from a bad
> contract instead of taking it, no matter how hungry I was.
--
Will the information superhighway have any rest stops?
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> Already on the system. No additional charge.
Which is not the same as no charge. Can you understand that difference?
Already on the system does not mean that it was free.
--
I was hitchhiking the other day, and a hearse stopped. I said, "No
thanks - I'm not going that far."
| |
| Oli Filth 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Jerry Stuckle said the following on 28/10/2005 16:46:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>
> You should read back through this branch.
OK... let's see:
Me:
> The biggest single reason I love an IDE that "understands" the
> language? Project navigation. A project with 100 classes split over
> an equally large number of source/header files, in a generic text
> editor, if I wanted to look up the the *!!!IMPLEMENTATION!!!* of
> X::Foo(), I'd either have to remember that Class X is defined
> somewhere in source file Y, then search that file (semi)manually, or
> do a global search for "Foo()" and wade through the results. In an
> IDE, I click on X in class-view, then click on Foo(), and I'm
> straight there.
You:
> Or, you just look it up in the project documentation.
Me:
> Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation*, not
> *doucmentation*
You:
> But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!
Me:
> What bearing does that have on anything?
Maybe it's just me, but your responses are complete non-sequiturs!
And AFAIK, in a NG when you reply to *and* quote someone, it's the norm
to post something that follows on in some way!
--
Oli
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-10-28, 6:57 pm |
| Oli Filth wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle said the following on 28/10/2005 16:46:
>
>
>
>
> OK... let's see:
>
> Me:
>
> You:
>
> Me:
>
> You:
>
> Me:
>
>
> Maybe it's just me, but your responses are complete non-sequiturs!
> And AFAIK, in a NG when you reply to *and* quote someone, it's the norm
> to post something that follows on in some way!
>
>
Not at all. Documentation should be completed BEFORE implementation.
Don't put the cart before the horst!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Chung Leong 2005-10-29, 6:59 pm |
| Can't this thread die already?
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:08:57 +0000, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Ramon wrote:
>
>
> Are you counting computer languages! ;-)
>
> Why does it matter if one can speak multiple languages anyway! I speak
> 'merican! That's all that matters! :-P
<OT rant>
LOL, clearly the arrogant limited view of an 'merican. Maybe you did
not notice but the world is larger than the U.S. of A. And if you want
to sell your product outside your country it definitely helps to speak a
little more than 'merican. Maybe most people in the world have learnt to
speak some English, and that is why you get away with it. But it helps a
lot in building a relation ship with your customer (and sell more!) when
you even try to speak a few words in their language. But what do you care?
Most people know that Americans are superficial and only interested in
short term profits and don't care about building a basis for future growth.
I know that I am generalizing, but I have found that this is true for a
majority of the Americans I know personally. Most are nice and decent
people, but still arrogant. Why do you think the rest of the world loves
the 'mericans so much??? Do not start telling me that I have not met
any real Americans, I did, I lived in your beautiful for a few years.</OT
rant>
| |
|
| I have as well, I lived and worked for a few years in LA & NY. US is not
a pleasant place to live. Very similar to Russia, everyone thinks they
are top shit. The statement above is not a surprise, well at least it
shouldn't be. As people in our industry, are isolated and have very
little social interaction. Sometimes it is so evident, that they can't
even see past their own noses.
Take a look at this thread. Two guys, who were originally arguing the
same XXXXing point, are now at each other's throats, the way I see it,
is that these two just love arguing, it makes them feel important.
Just simplicity if you ask me.
Fine you proved it: you have some experience, and have an opinion on the
matter of IDE. But the OP asked what IDE people are using, presumably he
already made the decision whether he wants to use an IDE or not.
You wanted to express your opinion?
This could have been done without arguing. In fact this isn't an
exclusive thing just for this topic. These two have done exactly the
same shit in numerous other threads.
Sad really.
paul wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:08:57 +0000, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <OT rant>
> LOL, clearly the arrogant limited view of an 'merican. Maybe you did
> not notice but the world is larger than the U.S. of A. And if you want
> to sell your product outside your country it definitely helps to speak a
> little more than 'merican. Maybe most people in the world have learnt to
> speak some English, and that is why you get away with it. But it helps a
> lot in building a relation ship with your customer (and sell more!) when
> you even try to speak a few words in their language. But what do you care?
> Most people know that Americans are superficial and only interested in
> short term profits and don't care about building a basis for future growth.
>
> I know that I am generalizing, but I have found that this is true for a
> majority of the Americans I know personally. Most are nice and decent
> people, but still arrogant. Why do you think the rest of the world loves
> the 'mericans so much??? Do not start telling me that I have not met
> any real Americans, I did, I lived in your beautiful for a few years.</OT
> rant>
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-30, 9:56 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
> I have as well, I lived and worked for a few years in LA & NY. US is
> not a pleasant place to live. Very similar to Russia, everyone thinks
> they are top shit.
That just says how out of touch you really are!
> The statement above is not a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
> As people in our industry, are isolated and have very little social
> interaction. Sometimes it is so evident, that they can't even see
> past their own noses.
Is social interaction required to express a technical opinion?
> Take a look at this thread. Two guys, who were originally arguing the
> same XXXXing point, are now at each other's throats, the way I see it,
> is that these two just love arguing, it makes them feel important.
I'm at nobody's throat!
> Just simplicity if you ask me.
>
> Fine you proved it: you have some experience, and have an opinion on
> the matter of IDE. But the OP asked what IDE people are using,
> presumably he already made the decision whether he wants to use an IDE
> or not.
Topics drift. Get use to it.
> You wanted to express your opinion?
Yes I did.
> This could have been done without arguing.
And yes I did that too. Then people started debating things. Nothing
wrong with that. Then mud started flying. Happens all the time.
> In fact this isn't an exclusive thing just for this topic. These two
> have done exactly the same shit in numerous other threads.
Now you're starting to see the light...
> Sad really.
It is the state of humanity really...
--
A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first
thought of. - Burt Bacharach
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-30, 9:56 pm |
| paul wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:08:57 +0000, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
BTW: I was putting forth a joke. But since you wish to be serious about
this and sling mud... well let the mud sling!
> <OT rant>
> LOL, clearly the arrogant limited view of an 'merican.
Yes I do have an arrogant view (I don't think it's limited, however).
I'm a jerk and an XXXXXXX and proud of it! I decided long ago that
"fureigners" will call Americans arrogant no matter what you do. And I'm
not about to go kissing butt of anybody who wishes to levy such a
charge. As I've often said, if I'm gonna do the time then I might as
well do the crime! Here comes the crime...
> Maybe you did not notice but the world is larger than the U.S. of A.
Yeah but all of the rest of it is irrelevant.
> And if you want to sell your product outside your country it
> definitely helps to speak a little more than 'merican.
I ain't selling any products nor anything outside the country so
personally I couldn't give a ratt's ass. And even if I were selling
stuff outside the US there are plenty of people who will buy without
insisting I speak their language. Evidence of this abounds...
> Maybe most people in the world have learnt to speak some English, and
> that is why you get away with it.
Ah ha! Well think about that statement a little harder there bud! Cause
it just contradicts your previous statement by directly saying that
people will learn and deal with English (only) speaking people because
we often have what they need. They don't do it out of the goodness of
their heart nor because they somehow find English fascinating. They do
it because they need to or want to someday go to a Western country or
the US to raise their standard of living. They do it because knowing
English raises their value the most, whereas say learning Hymalayan
won't do them diddly squat!
> But it helps a lot in building a relation ship with your customer (and
> sell more!) when you even try to speak a few words in their language.
> But what do you care?
Actually - no! It's by and large not necessary as they will learn your
language.
> Most people know that Americans are superficial and only interested in
> short term profits and don't care about building a basis for future
> growth.
Most people are jealous of others. So what?
And Americans are not only interested in short term profits. It's more
that they are not interested in building a basis for future growth with
you because they don't see you as something that has much potential. If
there is much long term potential we will build a basis for future
growth. What you don't understand is that very often it just is not
worth our effort because the ROI is too little.
> I know that I am generalizing, but I have found that this is true for
> a majority of the Americans I know personally. Most are nice and
> decent people, but still arrogant.
When you got what it takes you can be arrogant.
> Why do you think the rest of the world loves the 'mericans so much???
Because we got what they want. It's pretty simple really...
> Do not start telling me that I have not met any real Americans, I did,
> I lived in your beautiful for a few years.</OT rant>
Oh I'm not saying you haven't met any real Americans. You perhaps don't
understand them.
--
How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?
| |
|
| >>I'm a jerk and an XXXXXXX and proud of it!
Agreed.
> Yeah but all of the rest of it is irrelevant.
Now thats really amusing, considering if Russia and/or any other country
raise its petrol price above a certain amount, US will go into recession
as opposed to many European and Asian economies.
> They do it because they need to or want to someday go to a Western country or
> the USt to raise their sandard of living. They do it because knowing
> English raises their value the most, whereas say learning Hymalayan
> won't do them diddly squat!
Good point, but I see you mentioned "western" country, so you agree its
not just the US. Furthermore people learn English because so many people
in the world speak it, and not because of the US, in fact it has diddly
shit all to do with your polluted industrial waist land. And more with
Britain, and their colonies (including Australia & NZ).
> When you got what it takes you can be arrogant.
Got what it takes?! :) HA! Reminds me of all those retarded Hollywood
WWII films. Where after watching it, one would think that the US had a
large part to play in pushing Nazi Germany back, and winning the war
(which was pathetic, compared to say Britain and Russia). What 'mericans
are good at is ballooning everything, their accomplishments, loses.
Story tellers really. Kind of like you.
> Because we got what they want. It's pretty simple really...
What have you got? Targets for RussiansBrides.com? That break your
hearts and steal all your money? That you do... That you do... Whats the
suicide rate in the states? I recommend you have a look at it.
> Oh I'm not saying you haven't met any real Americans. You perhaps don't
> understand them.
Oh I understand them, I was on a business trip once, in central Sydney.
I was walking into my hotel, and I happen to meet a 'merican in the
elevator, who I followed to spread over the elevator walls. No manners,
no dignity, no self respect. All started over a elevator system, where
*shock horror* you had two different sets of elevators, the ones for
even numbers and another one for odd. Started swearing and abusing
everyone, was really amusing. Well not for him.
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-31, 6:58 pm |
| Ramon wrote:
(Some people really need to get a dictionary and look up the term
sarcastic. But I'll play long here...)
> Agreed.
Thank you!
>
> Now thats really amusing, considering if Russia and/or any other
> country raise its petrol price above a certain amount, US will go into
> recession as opposed to many European and Asian economies.
Sounds like a wonderful war time tactic. Wonder why it's rarely used...
>
> Good point, but I see you mentioned "western" country, so you agree
> its not just the US.
No (Again, see sarcastic)
> Furthermore people learn English because so many people in the world
> speak it,
Bingo! And why is that?
> and not because of the US,
Well it's surely not because of England. England may have gotten the
English language out to many countries but people don't learn English
now a days because of England. English is the language of business and
more importantly English is the language spoken in America!
> in fact it has diddly shit all to do with your polluted industrial
> waist land.
Ah an eco freak!
> And more with Britain, and their colonies (including Australia & NZ).
Yeah, right. Sure... See above (and see sarcastic)
>
> Got what it takes?! :) HA!
Thanks for the acknowledgment!
> Reminds me of all those retarded Hollywood WWII films.
I don't produce Hollywood films.
> Where after watching it, one would think that the US had a large part
> to play in pushing Nazi Germany back, and winning the war (which was
> pathetic, compared to say Britain and Russia).
Yeah but we were smart enough to let them do our dirty work!
> What 'mericans are good at is ballooning everything, their
> accomplishments, loses. Story tellers really. Kind of like you.
Hollywood produces entertainment - not reality (reality shows aside -
and they're not reality either)! Apparently you were unable to detect
the difference...
>
> What have you got?
Why, what people want, of course!
> Targets for RussiansBrides.com?
They want it...
> That break your hearts and steal all your money?
Some do...
> That you do... That you do... Whats the suicide rate in the states?
Don't know. Is that important? It doesn't seem to stop people from
wanting to be here...
> I recommend you have a look at it.
What fer?
>
> Oh I understand them,
So you think.
> I was on a business trip once, in central Sydney. I was walking into
> my hotel, and I happen to meet a 'merican in the elevator, who I
> followed to spread over the elevator walls.
Really? You spread this 'merican dude over the elevator walls?!? Cool
trick (I guess).
> No manners, no dignity, no self respect.
I wonder what he said of you?
> All started over a elevator system, where *shock horror* you had two
> different sets of elevators, the ones for even numbers and another one
> for odd.
Utterly stupid. Let me guess, you're thinking this is a good thing right?
> Started swearing and abusing everyone, was really amusing. Well not
> for him.
Oh so then one gains manners, dignity and self respect by tolerating
asinine elevator systems? Interesting philosophy there bud. Nah, here in
America we look at the ridiculous and devise better, more efficient ways
of doing things. The first step to this is challenging the status quo -
otherwise you get nowhere. I guess you are saying that in other
countries, in order to be polite, you don't question things, thus things
never progress. Yeah that's smart and explains why many countries remain
back assed and dislike Americans because we come up with new things by
challenging things that we see are wrong or could be improved.
Yeah never tell anybody when you see inefficiency or foolishness! Hell
they might improve it! But when in foreign countries they will instead
simply be insulted instead of looking at the problem, thus not do
anything about it. They are much more worried about their pride than
anything else.
That said I'm proud to be an arrogant, jerk, even/odd elevator system
hating American!
--
Do people in France use American ticklers?
| |
|
|
| Musashi 2005-10-31, 6:58 pm |
| Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
Oh I use Windows too. I don't use MS VS. I don't code in MS C++. I don't code in Visual Basic either (Actually I did do some VB stuff - VB script stuff - but used XEmacs to do it. MS VS VB is all oriented to creating Windows GUI programs, but the task at hand was not to produce a GUI program rather a script. BTW MS VS took up some 500 - 1 gig of my hard drive! What a waste to write a 100 line VB script! And please refresh my memory - exactly how much $$$ does one need to put out for MS VS? Thought so...)
>
Re: Your comments regarding Xemacs - spot on!, well said.
Although mainly a C/C++ developer (for which I used Xemacs a great deal), I had to
do a good deal of VBScripting last year, and visual-basic-mode.el add-on to Xemacs
was perfect for the task. It seems to be perfect for a great many different tasks!!
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
Those English dude are so funny. I'm curious, is it actually pronounced "ass" like us yanks or is it pronounced "are esss"?
Mostly like your phonetic representation. Although many people here have been "corrupted" by the influx of American culture via TV and films, and assume that "ass" is the way forward...
That it is... That it is... I will never get used to things like colour and cheques. For a giggle you should read: Plan for Improvement of English Spelling
>
Re: Your comments on English spelling - Well, having a high regards
for the classics, I've been searching for a downloadable copy of
Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary - you might think that it would be easily
downloadable since one might have expected the copyright would now
be expired after 200 years - but... every academic site that I have
tried looking seems to cleverly redirect you to some book sales site
rather than offer an online/downloadable version.
I'm inclined to side with Google on the book copyright dispute -
the book publishers and universities have had for too long a monopoly
on research writings - the Internet changes all that as they have begun
to find out. But... that is the stuff for another post and some other newsgroup.
Thanks
Musashi
(Jim Pannozzi)
| |
| Andrew DeFaria 2005-10-31, 6:58 pm |
| Steve wrote:
> Surely Godwin's Law <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law> now
> applies and this crap must fizzle out... isn't September over yet, FFS?
Interesting law. I never heard of it before but damn it makes sense!
|
|
|
|
|