Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

KDE Releases KDevelop 4.6

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the always-with-the-k dept.

KDE 93

New submitter KDE Community writes that the KDE project has released KDevelop 4.6.0 as the latest version of the free and open source integrated development environment. "KDevelop 4.6.0 improves debugging support with GDB. The GDB integration improvements include some operations now going into effect immediately rather than needing to re-run the program, improved debugging from external terminals, and a CPU registers toolview. KDevelopers' CPU registers toolview also allows for showing and editing all user-mode registers and general purpose flags for x86/x86_64/ARMv7 platforms. Other KDevelop 4.6.0 changes include greater language support within the PHP plug-in, Python language support improvements, more C++11 language support, improved project management, and a clean-up to the IDE's user-interface."

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IDEs... (-1, Offtopic)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45649875)

...what /for/?

Re:IDEs... (2)

Rhinobird (151521) | about 10 months ago | (#45649889)

Obviously, these KDE people want to blow stuff up.

Re:IDEs... (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 10 months ago | (#45650313)

Good call. Maybe the NSA should infiltrate open source projects and make sure there aren't any terrorists. They'll need to gain trust by spending a few years fixing bugs and adding new features.

Also, even though the NSA is watching my online activity and phone calls/location, they can't always tell what I'm doing offline. I suggest they assign two or three girlfriends to monitor me. I like nerdy mathematical types so I'm sure they can find someone. I'm usually more talkative after mind-blowing sex, so it will work out good for both of us.

Re:IDEs... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45652241)

UNDERCOVER WOMEN BLOWJOBS!

Re:IDEs... (0, Flamebait)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45649895)

(Note that this is a rhetorical question. Please spare me the details on how you can't develop without pushing around your mouse)

Re:IDEs... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650163)

Ever heard of keyboard shortcuts? Yeah, IDEs have these, too.

Re:IDEs... (2)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45650659)

Ever considered that an interface which is by design keyboard-driven is infinitely superior to a mouse-focussed GUI which also happens to offer some keyboard shortcuts? It's just not comparable.
For instance, what shortcut would you use for even something utterly trivial as 'delete N lines downwards'? Whatever shortcut that might be, you'd very likely end up hitting the same key combo N times.

Re:IDEs... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650735)

KDevelop uses Kate as its editing component, which has a Vim [kate-editor.org] emulation mode. Using this Vim mode, you would just do

(N-1)j

e.g.

4j

to delete 5 lines downwards. Additionally, KDevelop has probably the best C++ navigation/ code completion I've ever seen in an open-source IDE - it's a huge productivity booster for me.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45658859)

Oops - I meant "d4j" (or "4dj") - forgot the d! Anyway, I note that fisted simply dismissed this example - which he specifically asked for - anyway, and simply pronounced that it must "suck big time", without giving further specifics.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650775)

Because that's a common use case.
OK, me editing your code it probably is.

But insult aside, when it comes to parsing, even to related plugins, editors suck big time.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45651729)

Because that's a common use case. OK, me editing your code it probably is.

Made me laugh, thanks.

[...] when it comes to parsing, even to related plugins, editors suck big time.

When it comes to audio playback, audio encoders suck big time. See the analogy?

@Parent's siblings: You're proving my point by pointing out how you can get kinda-sorta-vi-ish-emulation into your fancy IDEs. (I've seen a bunch of those tools and they all suck big time)

Re: (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650967)

What makes you think text editors with a GUI are not keyboard usable? Get out of your cave! You might be surprised, but people working on an IDE are programmers... they do like the keyboard, too.

KDevelop even has vim-compatibility via its kate texteditor component. Eclipse has vim plugin, as does Qt Creator, which even ships with a "fakevim" plugin installed and enabled by default.

Qt Creator's main navigation method, the locator which will take you to any symbol/class/file/line/web page/...) is entirely keyboard based (trigger it with Ctrl-K, not the mouse though, that would kind of spoil the effect).

I use my IDE of choice almost completely without the mouse: The only time I grab the mouse is when browsing the help (that feels too much like browsing the web to avoid the mouse;-).

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45651747)

And what, oh ancient one, would you do to set a debug point? Whatever it is, I guarantee that an IDE is faster. Grow up, shave your neck beard, and realize that vi and emacs are both shit on modern systems.

Re:IDEs... (3, Insightful)

snemarch (1086057) | about 10 months ago | (#45651957)

Can't really think of a time where I had to "delete the next N lines" - but "expanding selection to next enclosing scope" or "word boundary", and either deleting or copying or cutting that? Or moving the current line, or currently selected lines up and down? That happens a lot... and my IDEs have shortcuts for that.

And then there's the neat stuff that's hard to do in a non-IDE, like efficient navigation (including jumping to one of multiple possible concrete implementations of an interface).

Sure, vim is neat for editing dumb config files over a SSH connection, but I don't get why people don't want to use the best tools for the job when it comes to programming... simple manipulation of text is probably what I spend the least amount of time on while doing development stuff.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45652107)

Come on....every one knows only n00bs use IDEs.
To be a 1337 haxor you must use vi.

Re:IDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45662801)

Duh ? ... I am so shocked to learn that I am a newbie since the last 28 years of c/c++ programming... ...And what about Visual Studio series... All pseudo-programmers IDE ??

What`s makes a geek more geek doing esc; :d5 [enter]; a or i; vs shift-right or left, up ,down; del key...?? ...pressing F8, or Command-b, or F5 to build ??? What's that very silly geek things ?

Re:IDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45676389)

Because using typical IDE built-in editors, you commonly end up with key sequences like up upupupupupupupupupupup down down end left leftleftleftleftleftleft shift+control left leftleftleftleftleftleftleft (release control) right right right right (release shift) delete when, say, changing the quoted part in a line, while using vim you might get there as quickly as Hf'di'

And think of how much is repetitive at code-editing. Need to repeat the last operation the line below? I do j. You do down end left leftleftleftleftleftleft shift+control left leftleftleftleftleftleftleft (release control) right right right right (release shift) delete

Re:IDEs... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45649927)

I agree, I've been a Windows c# programmer for 10 years and never had a single use for Visual Studio. All I do is edit code, compile and run, no joke.

Re: IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650019)

Wow, you are missing out big time!

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45652285)

If you care about your time you really owe it to yourself to look at Visual Studio. If you don't, well, then stick with something else.

Re:IDEs... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653189)

Yup

The funny thing is that many of the morons using VS couldn't manually compile their project if their pathetic life depended on it.

Compiling and building is black magic to these mental midgets.

IDEs... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45649997)

... because a *good* IDE can make you so much more productive. Yes, vim is great, yes, it can do a lot, but it still does not know what you are writing there.

My IDE does and thanks to that I can refactor stuff in seconds that took minutes earlier (or maybe even hours) and I make less mistakes doing so. Having to spend less time on boring tasks makes the whole job of programming something so much more enjoyable!

You need a good IDE though with a good code model, so that it actually understands the code you are writing. Many of the free IDEs do not have that, so those are a total waste of time. KDevelop, Eclipse and Qt Creator all have a code model though and do support you with quite a few refactoring operations (like move code around, rename variables and classes, etc.).

Re:IDEs... (0)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45650781)

... because a *good* IDE can make you so much more productive.

I found that a good editor made me much more productive.

Yes, vim is great, yes, it can do a lot, but it still does not know what you are writing there.

I'd argue that it's not the job of my tools to understand my code for me. The coder is the guy to have to understand the code.
That being said, I wouldn't even /want/ to have my text editor understand my code for me, because it's a text editor.

My IDE does and thanks to that I can refactor stuff in seconds that took minutes earlier (or maybe even hours) and I make less mistakes doing so. Having to spend less time on boring tasks makes the whole job of programming something so much more enjoyable!

Oh wow. Yeah, what's having to use a notepad-style integrated text editor when you can /refactor/ your code with just one click! Convinced me, will purchase.

You need a good IDE though with a good code model, so that it actually understands the code you are writing.

Redundant much?

Many of the free IDEs do not have that, so those are a total waste of time.

As is any other IDE

KDevelop, Eclipse and Qt Creator all have a code model though and do support you with quite a few refactoring operations (like move code around, rename variables and classes, etc.).

Refactoring, again. Is there any other reason to use an IDE or is it all about refactoring?

FWIW, i found that a tiling window manager like i3 and some xterms make up for a way superior development environment than any IDE i've seen so far (and I have seen a few).

Re:IDEs... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650839)

Yeah we get it, you're 1337. See above response about Vim emulation in Katepart [kate-editor.org] and shut up, thanks.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45651759)

Wouldn't I need to be a gamer for 1337ness?
I'm surprised by your weird reaction -- oh wait, you're using some vi-emulation. Yeah, those kind of make me angry too, for all the features they lack.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 10 months ago | (#45653609)

IDEs do a lot to make creating software more efficient. Mere typing is trivial, and doesn't generally take the majority of the time. If you can't learn an IDE well enough to appreciate it, you are either a complete idiot or you are writing such trivial software that no one cares about it. Or, possibly, you are using a language for which no (good) IDE exists, but you didn't try that argument, so I'm guessing A or B.

Re:IDEs... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45650957)

Clearly you underestimate the significance of being able to quickly refactor code. Of course, if you always write 100% correct code flawlessly the first time, this may not ever be an issue for you. Most human beings, however, suffer from flaws like imperfection... and having an automated device that compensates for that by remembering way more for you than you ever could possibly hope to at one time while you are writing your code is pretty damn convenient for a lot of people.

Re:IDEs... (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45651875)

Clearly you underestimate the significance of being able to quickly refactor code. Of course, if you always write 100% correct code flawlessly the first time, this may not ever be an issue for you.

That's not a sufficient condition. Your code has to be 100% correct and your design has to be 100% correct and your requirements can't ever change and your (target and development) environment can't ever change.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45651893)

Refactoring has nothing to do with improving correctness. Besides, being faster at refactoring is an entirely unverified claim on which I call bullshit.
On a broken codebase, which has lot of cross-module dependencies, global variables all over the place, shadowed by local variables here and there -- yeah, your full-parse fancy refactor thingy might get it faster. OTOH, that's not code I'd want to work with, and/or be proud of.

Any code written with a minimal reasonable amount of common sense and sanity, is quickly refactored right in the editor, for local parts, or with a combination of grep(1) find(1) and sed(1).
Big deal.
Learning how to use a couple unix programs sort of elimiates the need for a lot of programs previously considered indispensible.

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45652413)

My point about correctness was more along the lines of being writing code that didn't ever need to be changed after it was first written.

As for refactoring, try using just those tools to rename an identifier that is not, by itself, globally unique, but could nonetheless be uniquely identified by software that can understand the syntax of the language, and can realize the context of every single statement and identifier automatically.

Sure, you *CAN* do this by hand... but using a tool to accomplish it over a project that may be hundreds of thousands or even millions of lines of code, spanning several hundred or thousand source files, is going to be orders of magnitude faster and more reliable.

Of course, if program requirements never changed after the initial implementation was written, this probably wouldn't be an issue.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45654951)

This sort of stuff has been rare for me. Planning head helps a lot. Programmers survived for decades without these tools just fine, we sent people to the moon without Eclipse or Visual Studio. Ie, try to never have global variables, prefer variables that are scoped to the current file or function only, prefer class variables, etc.

For me the bigger refactoring issues are not about renaming but about redesigning an API; adding new parameters for example. Even then the cause for this is most often because of a lack of planning or lack of communication with teammates. The number of times I've needed to do this across more than 4 or 5 files at a time is probably only once a year, with the really massive refactoring changes requiring multiple developers touching a hundred files is maybe every five years.

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45655509)

Yes, programmers survived for decades without these tools,but back in those days, software wasn't anywhere nearly as big, and real-world expectations on software were not as high (mostly because most of the real world didn't even know what computers could do yet).

As you say, the cause for such changes is usually the result of a lack of planning. But in my experience, the real world rarely has a clear picture of what they actually want when a project starts... and if we all just waited until we had a guarantee that functional requirements weren't going to change, a lot of software just wouldn't get written at all. In my experience, when you start writing, you just develop what you can as extensibly as you know how, with the expectation that you will have to refactor everything later, and at some point, through ongoing functional requirement changes, the software ultimately begins to asymptotically approach what the client says that they want, and you get paid for your work.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Shados (741919) | about 10 months ago | (#45653201)

Hmm, I wonder where this value is being used... No no, not this variable in particular, but he value it contains, also, where it comes from. a few dozen million lines of code, the value crossing module boundaries, being passed around from object to object, injected, going through constructors and public properties...

Oh that's going to be fun with grep/find/sed.

Writing code is the most trivial part of software development. Reading/Maintaining it, no matter how awesome the people who initially wrote it are, is a totally different thing.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45654961)

And the IDEs that do what you describe are very rare, or only work for a particular language. Ie, Eclipse is great for Java, sucky for C.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Shados (741919) | about 10 months ago | (#45655453)

Eclipse is terrible, TERRIBLE for java (IntelliJ ftw). I'd be working in VIM too if I had to deal with Eclipse, fortunately I don't.

Yes, if I was working in C++ I'd be using a text editor, as a lot of the tools are unable to follow what complex templates do and whatsnot, but aside for that, most mainstream languages, from C# to Java, going by Python and Ruby, all have IDEs with these functionalities.

I don't care if they're rare, I only need one.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654007)

... actually you are not only faster at refactoring, but with an IDE you actually *do* refactor.

Without an IDE you find lots of excuses ("the name is not *that* bad", "I'll do it tomorrow", etc.) to avoid doing the refactoring at all.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45654839)

Yes, but what's the percentage of time. If an IDE slows you down to 20% of your normal speed but refactoring is now 500% faster, is it an overall win?

The refactoring won't even work until you first do the prerequisites: getting all your files into the project, setting up a build system with the IDE so that it knows which parts of the files are actually included, and so forth. Only then can you click the magic button and have things work. That's a non starter if you already have an existing project and build system. Then it all breaks in a month because someone adds a file to the system and you forget to add it to your private IDE system (ya, ya, the politically correct approach is to require all developers to use the exact same IDE).

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45658455)

Why in the world would using an IDE make you code at 1/5 of your normal speed? Functionally, and for the most part, an IDE is primarily just a text editor... it just happens to have features which can make doing certain operations faster than doing them in an editor that wasn't as programming language-aware as IDE's often are. When you aren't using any of the features specific to the IDE, why would it slow you down at all?

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45662661)

Because of decades of muscle memory in one editor, and most of the IDE editors I've used in the past were just awful, and because you're stuck in a lousy MDI interface

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45662991)

Did I understand this correctly: IDEs suck, because you have spend decades learning a text editor?

First I am impressed that it took you decades to learn a text editor. Forming muscle memory is one form of learning after all. That is real dedication.

Second that you do seem unable and unwilling to even bother to look at other things -- just because you took so much time learning something else. That show a amazing flexibility of the mind.

Finally that you managed to become a real editor-ninja in those decades that can type 5 times faster in that one editor than in *any* other. Those must be lightning reflexes you have when in edit mode.

Please continue to spend the next decades in vim land. Continue to program in C and perl, stick with sysvinit and keep up the delusion that X11 is network-transparent. Just stop spreading nonsense on the internet.

Re: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45651465)

> I found that a good editor made me much more productive.

A good text editor certainly helps, but a good IDE helps a lot more. After all it is basically a *intelligent* text editor plus some extra tools in one consistent package.

> I'd argue that it's not the job of my tools to understand my code for me. The coder is the guy to have to understand the code.

Nope, the co-worker of the coder has to understand the code.

And the compiler has to understand your code, too. And other specialized tools like bison/flex, make, etc. There are lots of tools in your work flow that need to make sense of -- at least some -- of the stuff you write.

> That being said, I wouldn't even /want/ to have my text editor understand my code for me, because it's a text editor.

No IDE in the world can understand your code for you. All it can do is to help you to understand your code better. And it can also help working with that code.

> Oh wow. Yeah, what's having to use a notepad-style integrated text editor

You have not used a UI in the last couple of years, did you? There are quite a few really powerful UI based text editors that are at least feature compatible with vim and emacs or even leave those in the dust. Some of the best are actually built into IDEs these days.

> [...] when you can /refactor/ your code with just one click!

I actually have this thing on my desk that people call a keyboard. It is basically a lot of mouse buttons right next to each other... if I press the right ones in the correct sequence then refactoring happens. I do not even have to click. Slick, isen't it?

If you need a mouse to use your IDE, then you are obviously doing it wrong -- or you are stuck in a really sucky IDE.

> Refactoring, again. Is there any other reason to use an IDE or is it all about refactoring?

You can write new code with almost any text editor.

Debugging that code? Understanding the code? Deploying it to some mobile phone or remote machine? Refactoring that code? An IDE is *way* ahead for any of those tasks.

> FWIW, i found that a tiling window manager like i3 and some xterms make up for a way superior development environment than any IDE i've seen so far (and I have seen a few).

Yeap, tiling WMs rock and terminals are a must have, I fully agree there. But I would still not want to miss out on my IDE.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45659089)

There are quite a few really powerful UI based text editors that are at least feature compatible with vim and emacs or even leave those in the dust.

Example sorely needed - I have never seen an IDE that is close to feature compatible with vim, much less beyond it in terms of editing power. I have used KDevelop, QtCreator, Code::Blocks, Xcode, Visual Studio, some free .Net thing I can't remember the name of, Xamarin studio... what are the amazing IDEs with unbeatable editors?

Re: (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45661363)

What are the most noteworthy features of vim that you have noted are missing from other editors? Or is it vim's modality that appeals to you most (in which case, even very basic notepad-style editors would be inferior)?

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45667529)

I don't think it's the modal nature necessarily. I would happily try out a decent alternative. I've hardly used emacs, but it has an alternative approach that seems just as powerful (though not as concise).

Vim features I use constantly and haven't seen anywhere else include the advanced motion and selection commands (it's hard to beat the succinctness of vim commands, e.g. "di{", "c2t.", "d4d5jp"), macro recording and playback, the ability to set arbitrary 'bookmarks' and use them as destinations for other commands (now or later).

Lots of little things that, once you incorporate them into your daily edits, substantially improve your editing speed and power. I have tried a few different "vim emulation" options (like VisVim), but they've never quite worked for me. It could be partially due to familiarity, but I always end up back in regular vim for one reason or another.

BTW, I am not one of those in the "IDEs suck" crowd, so don't think I'm advocating for doing everything in vim. I use Xcode and Visual Studio, and I think it's brain damaged to not make use of the features they offer. If it saves me time, I'm all for it - and vim saves me time when it's time for serious editing. I'm simply curious to hear about these IDEs that supposedly trounce vim's editing ability, because I've yet to see it.

Re: (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45667579)

They probably don't trounce any powerful, but strictly text-editing editor's capability in that regard... what they trounce is such editor's ability to assist a competent programmer at being more productive than they would otherwise be if all they had were such an editor.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45668561)

Right, except that the opposite claim was made in the post I replied to.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45659757)

I'd argue that it's not the job of my tools to understand my code for me. The coder is the guy to have to understand the code.

I hear ya, buddy. I could agree with you more! GP probably uses a compiler too. As a coder, it's MY job to translate the code to binary. I'm the one who understands it after all and there's no way any program is going to do it better let alone faster.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45654755)

The problem is that most IDEs have a limited view of the code, as in smaller editing windows. This is because they have all the tool bars, class views, variable views, and so forth visible. They never reduce to just a few large editing windows. With Emacs I can have 3 very large windows filling up the space on a wide screen monitor and this is very productive. I see people with vi or other straight-up code editors with lots of open windows at a time.

Technically an IDE _could_ do the same thing, but they don't and instead prefer to present a beginner's oriented GUI. To be fair, Emacs _could_ present more IDE features (it has some) but those are either lacking or have similar failures as IDE (lots of child windows).

Another major fault with most IDEs I've seen is that their best features will not be usable unless you build a project the way they want it built. Ie, you need to use their build system, their project management, their compilers, their debuggers. They become clumsy if you need to use external tools. I have seen developers swapping between multiple IDEs for a single project because no single one could manage it all. Trying to adapt a new IDE to an existing project is extremely difficult.

I would like to try a good IDE but I have not found one that does not slow me down to a crawl.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45656213)

If you have a decent IDE, you can configure it to use whatever build system you want. You can also import projects with folder/folders scattered everywhere (Eclipse can do both). You just have to take a moment and read the fucking manual on how to adjust the settings or explore the menus. You still have to read the fucking manuals if you want to learn the command line tools though you can't explore command line options interactively (that would be awesome if you could).

Ignoring start up times (and how many times do you restart an IDE, just leave it open. Opening a new window isn't restarting the IDE), IDEs can do everything text editors can. There are VIM and Emacs keybindings for the major IDEs and all the IDEs I've seen (including Gedit/Pluma) have a way to run terminal commands.

Advanced text editors along with command line tools can also do everything IDEs can do (after all IDEs are a collection of tools just with a poor external API), except the tools have a higher learning curve because they aren't all right in front of you in categorized menus.

Can't we all get along? All these IDE vs text editor arguments are only penis measuring contests. The capabilities of both are exactly the same.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650765)

I take it you're not actually a productive software developer?

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45651041)

Is it somehow some sort of a heinous sin to be more vastly productive with an IDE? Sure, a good programmer may not really *need* an IDE to technically be able to simply do the functions of their job... but a good IDE can still save that programmer a whole lot of time while doing that job, and bearing in mind that the real world has things like deadlines... and programmers still need to do things like pay bills and most of them like to eat at least occasionally, so they need to finish those jobs on time, and not take 5 or 10 times longer on a large scale project than it would have if they had been using an IDE.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45652293)

Look, there are two approaches to software: the One-Tool-Does-It-All approach which we're familiar with from the Windows world. IDEs are an incarnation of this approach.
Then there's the One-Tool-For-One-Job approach, which focusses on flexibility - we know this from the unix world.

It isn't a ``heinous sin'' to think you're vastly more productive with an IDE (although most people making that claim simply do not know their unix toolbox). If you like the monolithic approach, fine.

Contrary, it's not a sin either to prefer the other (and arguably older, [hint hint, GP]) approach.

That being said, please stop tring to point out how much faster you actually are using an IDE, when in actuality you only know one side of the picture.

And yes, I used IDEs, for years, and then stopped using IDEs, years ago.

Re:IDEs... (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45652499)

No... it's not.... but I really get tired of seeing people here suggest that programmers who might actually require an IDE to get their jobs done in a timely fashion are somehow less competent as programmers than people who've probably never had to work on large scale projects with schedules that aren't humanly possible to achieve if you were to just use manual tools and a plain text editor.

Whether this is not the programmer's fault is irrelevant... this is how the real world of software development actually is... and a programmer who doesn't get the job done in the time that he's expected to do so is soon going to find himself unemployed. Call me picky... but I would rather be able to afford to keep a roof over my head and eat than brag about being such an awesome programmer that I don't need modern software development environments like an IDE to get a job done.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45653277)

No... it's not.... but I really get tired of seeing people here suggest that programmers who might actually require an IDE to get their jobs done in a timely fashion are somehow less competent as programmers than

Ah, here it goes again:

people who've probably never had to work on large scale projects with schedules that aren't humanly possible to achieve if you were to just use manual tools and a plain text editor.

...did you by any chance not read the post you're replying to? Stop pretending like IDEs would naturally boost productivity, when you simply don't know both sides of the issue. I'd actually be slower using an IDE. And in no fucking way would one /ever/ need to have a grasp of the entire code base in order to work on something. When i work on a project, i work on a specific subsystem of said project. If that subsystem still consists of over 9000 lines of code, i /again/ can usually narrow down the part I need to understand to a particular feature of said subsystem, eventually arriving at a managably-sized piece of code, which i then try to understand, and edit. At the 'editing' part, i usually don't need any code-specific help from my editor anymore - what i want there, is minimizing the amount of typework I have to do.

Of course, if the code base is arbitrarily messed up and convoluted, things become different. But then again, two wrongs do not make a right.
And if your coding paradigm is ``type-something-and-then-let-stupidisense-figure-it-out'', then you're generally doing it wrong.

Whether this is not the programmer's fault is irrelevant... this is how the real world of software development actually is... and a programmer who doesn't get the job done in the time that he's expected to do so is soon going to find himself unemployed. Call me picky... but I would rather be able to afford to keep a roof over my head and eat than brag about being such an awesome programmer that I don't need modern software development environments like an IDE to get a job done.

That's again all implying a programmer who doesn't use an IDE is somehow not able to get the job done in similar time. In messed-up cases that might be true, but in general it's simply wrong. Just because you can't picture it, it need not be impossible. News at 11.

Re:IDEs... (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45653311)

BTW, forgot this:

manual tools and a plain text editor.

Said 'manual tools' are typically non-interactive and hence very automatic, especially in pipelined combination.
The text editor is hardly 'plain', it's highly functional.

You seem to know your stuff very well.

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45653703)

You said it yourself... "in messed up cases that might be true".

A great deal of the world of software development is made up messed up cases, incomplete and constantly changing functional requirement specifications, and just trying to freaking get the job done before your employer decides to replace you with somebody else who might even be less competent than you, but will tow the company line and work for less money than you will. In my experience, the real world demands results that are not humanly achievable *without* sophisticated software development tools, and that includes using an IDE, helping the programmer to get the job done on time and within budget.

I am entirely able to develop software without an IDE... but I've never once found it very productive to do so for anything larger than toy programs.

Re:IDEs... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about 10 months ago | (#45653323)

Programmers that need an IDE are crappy programmers by definition.

If you can't manually refactor, debug, compile and build your code, you don't know what you are doing and should probably stop.

That said, an IDE can be a help in some cases and using one doesn't automatically make you a crappy programmer.

It's the programmers that can't do anything without an IDE that are suspect.

Re:IDEs... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45653619)

There's a big difference between being able to do something, and being able to do it before you get fired for not being able to finish it just because you think you have some sort of point to prove.

Re:IDEs... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about 10 months ago | (#45656007)

That whooshing sound is you missing the point.

Are you saying you can't quickly do anything if there isn't one giant button for you to push?

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45656205)

What are you even talking about?

Re:IDEs... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about 10 months ago | (#45656393)

You are obviously in a conversation that is over your head.

I guess you fall into the has to use IDE's category and are offended that you don't care enough to learn your profession.

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45656539)

I guess I fall into the category of not having a clue as to what using an IDE has to do with pushing "giant buttons".

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45665451)

Yeah, he/she is right.

You are an idiot who obviously needs an IDE as a crutch.

GTFO

Re:IDEs... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45665977)

Mp> What I am is somebody who takes offense at the idea that a person might actually be more productive at their job when they use certain types of tools is somehow less competent as a computer programmer. I still fail to see what using an IDE has to do with what is evidently likened to mindlessly pushing buttons.

Also, if the best you can do is insult somebody who doesn't happen to share your values about what the best tools are to use instead of actually specifically addressing the issue being discussed, then it's fairly clear that you don't have any real argument.

As for your "GTFO" concluding remark, why on earth anyone would you ever expect anyone to acquiesce to such an imperative given by a complete stranger on the internet that they will never actually meet? And if you didn't expect acquiescence to the command, why on earth would you have ever given it, short of some sort of desire to use an expletive to make yourself sound tougher than what is remotely possible to achieve while you are still completely anonymous? It's not entirely unheard of in the real world for similar such blustering to be little more than compensation for certain types of personal flaws or insecurities. I don't know you well enough to honestly say what those flaws or insecurities might be, but I can well imagine.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653939)

Carpenters that _need_ a power drill are crappy carpenters by definition.

If you can't manually drill holes, you don't know what you are doing and should probably stop.

That said, a power drill can be a help in some cases and using one doesn't automatically make you a crappy carpenter.

It's the carpenter that can't do anything without a power drill that are suspect.

Are you seriously suggesting that the quality of a programmer should be based on how well he can hack the build system of a project?

Re:IDEs... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about 10 months ago | (#45655991)

Nice non-sequiter.

The quality of a programmer is measured by many factors, knowing the system he is working on means he knows the build system well.

Re:IDEs... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 10 months ago | (#45653679)

The GP to which you replied is a near-sighted bigot. If he lived in the South, he'd be prime KKK material. For all I know, he's a(n honorary) member in actuality.

Anyone who thinks a few keystrokes is less efficient than piecing together a Unix pipeline that will totally mess up your code is a complete idiot and really isn't worth a second thought.

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653705)

Look, there are two approaches to software: the One-Tool-Does-It-All approach which we're familiar with from the Windows world. IDEs are an incarnation of this approach.

Then there's the One-Tool-For-One-Job approach, which focusses on flexibility - we know this from the unix world.

Oh my... this reply starts with a misconception and goes downhill from there.

Forget that fable about the "unix way" and the "windows way". The unix way works for what it was designed for: To have applications talk to each other via pipes. It is great for that, but it is just not feasible for anything else. Have you ever noticed how many applications like that are used on windows? None? Exactly: That is why that approach is not taken on windows.

Look around on Linux: Even there you will not find many new applications that still work with the good old pipes... (almost) everything with a UI does not support them, incl. most of the applications that have a curses-based (text-mode for everybody without a unix background) UI! So basically this is dead since the 1980.

What happens on Linux instead? The same as on windows: You run services/daemons that implement the functionality and have a UI talk to them. Oh, of course we did pioneer this "client-server-computing" on unix. Those stinking windows devs stole it from us:-) But actually most developers do not bother to separate logic into a client and a server part (neither on Linux nor on Windows).

There is hardly any difference between the "unix way" and the "windows way" nowadays -- and has not for a long time. Go and check out some windows apps if you do not trust me. It always helps to widen the horizon:-)

It isn't a ``heinous sin'' to think you're vastly more productive with an IDE (although most people making that claim simply do not know their unix toolbox).

Thanks for telling me I am not sinning by not following the "true unix way". You did have me worried there for a moment.

You do take you own anecdotal evidence rather seriously by the way. And what makes you think people that use IDEs do not know the unix tools? I definitely do and those tools do have their uses. A occasional perl one-liner can save the day.

If you like the monolithic approach, fine.

Next misconception: No IDE I know is monolithic. They are all based on plugins. You do not need git support? Fine, just throw that out. They all are highly configurable that way. You can slim them down a lot if do not need everything.

I think you still are stuck in the one-process definition of monolithic... Please get yourself up to date: Even clang -- hailed as highly modular compiler -- consisting mostly of libraries that are linked together at build time -- way less dynamic than the plugins used in IDEs.

Contrary, it's not a sin either to prefer the other (and arguably older, [hint hint, GP]) approach.

Next misconception: Something being older does not make it better. Maybe they could just not do an IDE in the seventies? Memory was severly limited back then... "Ed" was the hot thing till finally "vi" became possible, too.

That being said, please stop tring to point out how much faster you actually are using an IDE, when in actuality you only know one side of the picture.

Next misconception. Not everybody that disagrees with you is stupid. Neither does it imply that those people do not know unix.

And yes, I used IDEs, for years, and then stopped using IDEs, years ago.

My guess is that either you either did not use a good one or you did not bother to learn how to use it properly.

The latter happens a lot with vi-junkies. Nothing can be as good as vi and it is highly suspicious if something is done in a different way. Very narrow view on the world those people. I guess they have to justify the time spend on memorizing all the shortcuts to themselves;-)

Re:IDEs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654473)

"And what makes you think people that use IDEs do not know the unix tools? I definitely do and those tools do have their uses. A occasional perl one-liner can save the day."

Probably the funniest/ most irritating part of fisted's argument is that it is attached to an article about KDevelop - an IDE that is used - and developed - on Linux. The people working on it likely know the UNIX tools like the backs of their hands, and still decided to write an IDE because they found the tools wanting!

Re:IDEs... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45655031)

The sin is to accuse other programmers who do not use your tools of being inferior to you.

Parent gets it! Mod up! (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45656655)

[nt]

"Related Links" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45649911)

915Is the Porsche Carrera GT Too Dangerous?
810Electric Cars: Drivers Love 'Em, So Why Are Sales Still Low?
783Texas Drivers Stopped At Roadblock, Asked For Saliva, Blood
722Google: Our Robot Cars Are Better Drivers Than You
666Atlanta Man Shatters Coast-to-Coast Driving Record, Averaging 98MPH

I....guess i see.

Re:"Related Links" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45651249)

That's what happens when you start editing user-mode registers and general purpose flags on the fly. Also, this [youtube.com]

Templates (1)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 10 months ago | (#45650013)

Do they have a sane template selection yet? The last few times I've tried KDevelop, in order to get anything done in Java or C, I essentially had to roll my own.

Re:Templates (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 10 months ago | (#45650401)

I just assumed that anyone writing Java code would use Eclipse as their first choice. (But I'm not an expert Java coder.) Is there some reason to want to use KDevelop rather than Eclipse when coding Java?

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650563)

Yes, there are reasons. You avoid installing and learning another IDE - a decidedly heavyweight one at that - when you already have another one, which is leaner, fits your environment better.

It's annoying because Kdevelop is perfectly capable of doing the job, or rather would be able to do it, if you just didn't have to roll your own templates for everything not C++ or QT. And btw, I could understand referring people interested in java to Eclipse, but forcing people to waste time to write a template for plain old C or use a lesser IDE? It feels pretty.... petty, IMO.

Re:Templates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650907)

Since it sounds like you already wrote some... you could always... you know... submit them to the developers to be included in future releases?

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650657)

In my opinion, Eclipse itself is becoming quite a good reason, a bit more with every release...

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45651023)

I just assumed that anyone writing Java code would use Eclipse as their first choice.

As someone insane enough to write Java in their free time I avoid Eclipse like a plague. Every release I used was insanly resource hungry, had bugs, froze or outright corrupted my projects. /ragestart Yes some plug-ins might have been responsible for that, guess what you get when you run Eclipse without them? An idle OSGi platform waiting to load plugins - not exactly usefull as an IDE /rageend. I moved to Netbeans since it is good enough and stable, my problems with it have been limited to a corrupted compilation cache after a power loss and a bug in the jdk breaking a menu. Last I heard from eclipse was that they disabled their performance tests instead of fixing the problem. For a reason to use KDevelop instead of Eclipse, it would be hard to be worse (then again as far as open source java projects go gcj showed that you can do worse even when the bar is set low).

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45652243)

Eclipse is a monster. Given a module based build system like Maven the IDE is a glorified syntax highlighter. Why not pursue something that doesn't allocate 0.5GiB or RAM and take half a minute just to start up?

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653863)

Maven is worse than eclipse could ever be.

Fuck Maven and I hope all its devs and evangilists die in a fire.

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45657445)

you are an angry short fused fool. maven is a collection of best practices, if you find it hard, your method is wrong, it's as simple as that.

Re:Templates (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45655059)

That's the biggest failings of IDEs I think. They tend to want one IDE per language type; sometimes one IDE per language/OS pair as well as not all of them are portable.

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650423)

I have no I idea, but I certainly second your desire for such. The old kdevelop used to have templates for pretty much anything under the sun, but it's definitely been lacking the last few years. I guess they don't have much interest in java, and people who are after that could always get eclipse instead, but having to roll your own template or use eclipse or some second rate IDE for pure C is just silly.

Re:Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45651001)

Have you tried kapptemplate or rummaging through the kdevplatform directory of kdevplatform?

PHP / Quanta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45650411)

Does it finally have a usable interface for editing PHP? Still using Quanta 3.5 along with 100k other coders since the kdevelop php interface is fucking disgusting... would love a modern upgrade finally.

Re:PHP / Quanta (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 10 months ago | (#45650437)

I used to love ActiveState Komodo IDE for PHP, back in version 6. They did some redesign for V7+ that just killed performance, though. 'What does performance have to do with IDEs', one may ask. Massive input lag, and the like. It's that bad.

Sad, too. It was great.

Re:PHP / Quanta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45657459)

try netbeans

Re:PHP / Quanta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45668629)

Does it finally have a usable interface for editing PHP? Still using Quanta 3.5 along with 100k other coders since the kdevelop php interface is fucking disgusting... would love a modern upgrade finally.

For a PHP IDE it's PHPStorm all the way. It's made by Jetbrains and uses a lot of the engine and codebase from IntelliJ. Storm is awesome. Not free, but well woth the money. We've been using it in our office for 2 years now and we're still constantly amazed when we find some new shortcut/feature/whatever. The IDE is not sluggish at all and it's got a lot of commands, allowing for keyboard only working.

LLVM/Clang support (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 10 months ago | (#45654079)

Is Kdevelop and other KDE/Qt compiler tools now supportive of LLVM/Clang as well, or are they still just GCC only?

Re:LLVM/Clang support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654947)

You have been able to use Clang as your compiler for a while, but on the roadmap for KDevelop they have tighter integration for other niceties (not related to the compiler, but editing, refactoring, error reporting etc. See Xcode for examples :).

Re:LLVM/Clang support (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45655091)

And yet another failing of IDEs, they tie themselves too tightly to the external tools that developers need. A good tool should be flexible and conform to the developer instead of assuming the developer will conform to the tool.

Re:LLVM/Clang support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45723775)

You can uses CMake, so yes, although personally I have only dabbled with Clang. I have a vague recollection of something to do with Clang and code-completion, maybe just someone contemplating using it for that purpose.

Set up the tools for CMake and you can use KDevelop to target all sorts of platforms... I do Arduino builds using 'arduino-cmake'... launches avrdude and microcom all 'inside' KDevelop.
 

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?