2009/10/2 DarkWyrm <darkwyrm@xxxxxxxxx> > Pier Luigi Fiorini wrote: > >> 2009/10/1 Salvatore Benedetto <salvatore.benedetto@xxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:salvatore.benedetto@xxxxxxxxx>> >> >> I'd rather see only one well organized, well coordinated, well designed >> (like eclipse), well integrated with Haiku (and the debugger) >> than many efforts like we have in seen (Niue, Paladin etc..) so far. >> >> That would be better indeed. >> What do Niue, Palading and Sisong authors do think? >> > > Paladin came about after working with the Niue sources for a little > while last October. The project editor code is OK, but the editor > sources are a mess that is hardly what I'd call maintainable. If you > look at the Yate, you'll see what I mean. I say this only as my own > opinion of the code and not to rip on the hard work that Tako and > urnenfeld have put into it. Anyway, I started it because the niche > needed filled and I couldn't bear to not scratch the itch any longer. > > With that being said, judging from the marked differences between the > projects, I'm not so sure that the diversity is such a bad thing. SHINTA > is doing a nice job with a visual editor, something which I've wanted to > do but haven't had the time. Sisong has a very different approach to what I > think an IDE should be, but it doesn't make it or Paladin any better or > worse. > > Yes, it would be better to have three developers working on the same IDE. > Progress would be better, for example, but the way I like to work is very > different from they way that, say, Axel or Ingo does. Different developers, > different tools. :) > > I see. The direction it's taking is not bad at all if it ends with libraries for the most common parts of an IDE, it would be a matter of implementing a particular workflow for every IDE and reusing the same components (such as a text editor, completion, build system integration, ...) will help not waisting resources on implementing the same thing over and over. -- Some companies die Be's beauty lives forever in immortal rhyme