[pedevel] Re: $Id$ Tags

  • From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pedevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:05:37 +0200 CEST

Oliver Tappe <pedevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But the main problem I see here is that starting from scratch will 
> indeed be 
> a lot of work, and I am not sure we would get very far in the long 
> run. There 
> are many other development environments out there, so there's hope 
> that at 
> least one or two of them are usable, right?

As far as editors go, I would probably always prefer Pe :-)

> If we really dump Pe, we should consider adopting one of those IDEs - 
> which 
> would probably include having to port the toolkit they depend on. But 
> that 
> would at least give us: 
>       - a ported toolkit
>       - an IDE we could add missing features to
>       - a debugger with a better interface than gdb
> 
> Then again, I haven't checked out the IDEs yet, maybe I'm just 
> dreaming and 
> there's nothing good enough out there?

I've recently worked with QtCreator, and while there is still a lot to 
do, it isn't that bad either. Or at least it's on the right track - the 
editor itself isn't that great, and has annoying features (like smart 
indenting that always gets in your way) you cannot turn off, or only in 
a way that it annoys, too.
But the IDE part often works nicely (term completion, help, function 
popup, etc.), if you don't consider a versioning system to be part of 
an IDE.

Since we would probably want a fabulous Jam integration, I'm not sure 
if that could be easily hacked in there, but maybe, after having ported 
Qt, this would make as a good playground to start off working.

Bye,
   Axel.


Other related posts: