*nod*
Any editor worth it''s salt can be extended via scripting or plugins, certainly not a vi specific thing.
Something I find amusing, while we are on the subject of customization, is how few editors allow you to customize the status bar (or similar).. The really amusing part, I think, is how the few editors that CAN tend to be the best in terms of configurability and such.
Luckily for us (as programmers) the editors that come in the box (i.e. the editor you tend to be stuck with in a ide) arn''t the weak kneed excuses of old.
Write code in Vi == teh suck
100
October 24, 2003 09:12 AM
quote: Original post by DrjonesDW3d
There are two kinds of people... mostly younger people who grew up with the modern day IDEs, they tend to like the visual studio type interface. Then there are the old people who learned on vi, many of which still use it (I know a guy who has been using it for over 20 years).
True for some but not all, I''m 26 and I don''t think it''s concidered old. But then again, I''ve never liked Visual Studio. I actually prefered my good old Borland C++ IDE for DOS. Now that was something. I still sometimes use Xwpe just to remind me of old times. But then again, I always go back to vim. When I mention vi it''s just becaue being the lazy ass bastard that I am, if I can save one key stroke, I''ll do it. So I''ve aliased vi to point to vim.
[Cyberdrek | the last true sorcerer | Spirit Mage - mutedfaith.com][ Administrator & WebMaster GuLSE]
[Cyberdrek | ]
100
October 24, 2003 09:14 AM
quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
uh.... yeah... vi sux...
nano?
Now that''s just a great comment... Bravo... Seriously, can''t you do a bit better and maybe be a bit more constructive?
[Cyberdrek | the last true sorcerer | Spirit Mage - mutedfaith.com][ Administrator & WebMaster GuLSE]
[Cyberdrek | ]
122
October 24, 2003 11:40 AM
Is the typing speed seriously that important. If you dont have good debugger and other tools that comes with the editor you will eventually use much more time debugging that you would do typing. And the defference between .NET editor and other superduperneed10yearstolearneditors in speed can not be so huge that it realy will increase your productivity.
So let vi/vim/ed die with the old computers and look onward with new technology and new ways of programming that will increase your productivity instead of be nostalgic.
So let vi/vim/ed die with the old computers and look onward with new technology and new ways of programming that will increase your productivity instead of be nostalgic.
968
October 24, 2003 12:34 PM
Indeed. When developing, just how large a percentage of the time is actually spent typing? I seriously doubt it''s more than 10%(wet finger in the air estimate), if that.
--AnkhSVN - A Visual Studio .NET Addin for the Subversion version control system.[Project site] [IRC channel] [Blog]
166
October 24, 2003 02:13 PM
Indeed you bring up a good point about debuging and how much time is really spent typing, etc.
My opion is somewhat biased as (perhaps by ineptitude) I''ve had mixed luck with GUI debuggers... 9 times out of 10 I debug by log files, which serves me better than gui debuggers. Such methodlology fits in well with typing speed, well macros and expansion really.
But then again I got out of the habbit of using ides shortly after discovering them (Turbo-C 3 I think it was, in dos), largly because I didn''t like the built in editor (so I fell in love with Aurora Text Editor), and later in windows land Multi-Edit... I''d use the debugger when necessary. When I started writting games (well still trying) I didn''t have a second monitor so I went the log file route, which has served me well. So now, I usually don''t use an ide for more than compiling the code and jumping to errors. (in windows land); *nix I like a Makefile.
Like so much of life, it''s what you get used to!
My opion is somewhat biased as (perhaps by ineptitude) I''ve had mixed luck with GUI debuggers... 9 times out of 10 I debug by log files, which serves me better than gui debuggers. Such methodlology fits in well with typing speed, well macros and expansion really.
But then again I got out of the habbit of using ides shortly after discovering them (Turbo-C 3 I think it was, in dos), largly because I didn''t like the built in editor (so I fell in love with Aurora Text Editor), and later in windows land Multi-Edit... I''d use the debugger when necessary. When I started writting games (well still trying) I didn''t have a second monitor so I went the log file route, which has served me well. So now, I usually don''t use an ide for more than compiling the code and jumping to errors. (in windows land); *nix I like a Makefile.
Like so much of life, it''s what you get used to!
October 25, 2003 12:20 AM
If something takes time and involves a lot of "manual" work will most of us avoid it so I think speed is very important. A editor used for programming must allow easy navigation between many files for example. The tools should help do the job fast and easy without you having to adjust to their shortcomings.
The debugger doesnt have to come with the editor you can use vim and ddd for example. The same is of course true for all tools.
For the 10% spent typing do you mean the time actually pressing and releasing the keys? Almost all development time is spent in a editor. Any programmer spending more time in a debugger is using the wrong tools, have some extreme weird bugs or is simple incompetent. Perhaps was the time estimation including things that most of us would not call developing?
The debugger doesnt have to come with the editor you can use vim and ddd for example. The same is of course true for all tools.
For the 10% spent typing do you mean the time actually pressing and releasing the keys? Almost all development time is spent in a editor. Any programmer spending more time in a debugger is using the wrong tools, have some extreme weird bugs or is simple incompetent. Perhaps was the time estimation including things that most of us would not call developing?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
