Quote:Original post by evolutional I think what would be good in this thread would be a few objective reviews of the software based on personal experience. |
Righto.
Here are some objective reviews. Remember the programs may have changed since I last used them. Perhaps they aren't as bad now.
Quote:
- Crashes more often than seems reasonable.
- Like the rest of KDE, no direct support for community extensions/plugins.
- No easy escape from the GNU automake toolchain.
+ Interface is quite customizable, although has nothing on Eclipse.
- Often forgets my interface customizations.
+ Reasonably capable interactive program checker.
+ Good understanding of C++ object model. Class browser is competent.
- No refactoring support. Shame.
Quote:
- For non-C/C++ languages, nothing but a glorified editor.
- Comparitively light on features and configurability.
- No extension or plugin system to correct the previous two faults.
- Doesn't know about object orientation: no C++-specific features.
Quote:
- Very limited feature-set.
+ Looks quite like Developer Studio.
- Looks quite like Developer Studio.
Quote:
- The best features only work for Java.
- Not easy to set up a compilation toolchain.
- Expects you to use GNU make. No support for Microsoft's nmake.
- Performance is largely at the mercy of whatever Java runtime you're using.
+ Good knowledge of the C++ object model.
- The refactoring support in C++ is virtually useless. (It's very good in Java.)
+ Highly customizable in almost all aspects.
+ The interface customization is so well realised it deserves a mention of its own.
+ Lively plugin community. Can automatically update plugins and download new plugins from update sites.
- No in-IDE feature for finding new update sites, or for searching for plugins.
+ Lots of plugins for lots of things.
- If plugin diversity is not curtailed, it'll succumb to the Emacs effect. At some point, it may need to be divided into seperate components in the manner of Mozilla's division into Firefox and Thunderbird.
Quote:
- Little more than a text editor.
- Slow.
Quote:
= An operating system that some people mistake for an editor. Fine if you like that sort of thing.
Quote:
- I don't like the weird two-mode interface. It should be a clue that no other widely-used editor has elected to duplicate that feature.
+ Fast and competent if you know how to use it.
+ Highlighting for a lot of languages.
- No project management that I can find.
Quote:
= Really just text editors.
Quote:
= Emacs can be a GUI editor to.
- Emacs does almost everything it does. Should be obsolete.
Quote:
+ Competent little text editor.
+ Syntax highlighting, folding, and other good stuff.
- No project management.
Quote:
+ Competent little text editor.
+ Syntax highlighting, folding, and other good stuff.
- No project management.
Quote:
= Just a graphical interface to an enhanced vi. See comments for vi.