Related
I've been programming in python and C for a little less than a year, now. I switched from OSX to Ubuntu about a month ago. I'm learning C++, and most specific (non-beginner, I.E.: an SFML tutorial I'm using) tutorials that I've seen talk as if I use an IDE. I've used Textwrangler (OSX), gedit (Linux), and nano (Both; With built-in syntax highlighting and other extras turned on) for programming, along with the terminal and "make" so far, and I'm perfectly happy with them. I would use emacs, but I really don't like the way it looks. Should I use an IDE for C++? If so, why? Honestly, I'm just scared of being a ctrl-space'ing heathen. Thank you for any responses, and take the previous sentence with a grain of salt.
Short answer: Use an IDE if you feel comfortable with one. Don't use an IDE if you don't feel comfortable with one.
To really answer this question, though, we should probably look what using an IDE gets you. Here's the Visual Studio interface for C++:
(source: msdn.com)
The first thing you notice, of course, is the code windows with the pretty highlights. However, that's not the IDE; that's just the text editor part. The rest of it is what's really important. Visual Studio includes a debugger, a file/project manager, a compiler, support for source control... the list goes on. The first letter of "IDE" is the most important one - integrated. It includes everything you need to develop in one neat package.
However, this has its downsides, too. Maybe you don't like VS's text editor. Then, you have to have two windows open, and use the IDE only for debugging, compiling, and source control, wasting most of the screen space. Maybe, after a while, you start to think maybe GCC optimizes your code better, so you start using that. Eventually, the "integrated" part of IDE goes out of the window, and you're using only a few features of the product. At that point, it might be more productive just to find replacements for everything.
Of course, there are extensions and plugins for some of these things, but the point is: an IDE is generally only useful if you spend all or most of your time in it. If you like the entire or most of the IDE, great. If you don't, then use something else, whether that's another IDE or a bunch of command line tools or something else.
Addendum: I used to use Visual Studio, and then moved to Linux with Vim, gcc, and gdb. I work with SFML a fair amount in personal projects, and I don't feel that an IDE is especially suited to it in any particular way; I do just fine with the command line tools. The tutorials are most likely written that way because most people begin coding with an IDE, and SFML attracts a lot of beginners.
It's been more than an year that i'm developing a new scripting language with its own grammar rules and constructs.
I'd like to give the users of this language some minimalistic ide to work with, but i don't want/have time to make one from scratch so i'd like to take one already existing (it has to run on Linux platforms natively, so no windows-only editors plz) and customize it.
Well, which one is the easiest to customize without changing the source code and recompiling it, maybe even with plugin support?
Thank you.
UPDATE
I don't need to know which editor is the best for you, i need to know which one is the easiest to customize AND, most of it, which one has the most complete documentation about new language customization.
Ex: SciTE is good, but its documentation about custom grammars is really poor.
Have you looked into Scintilla/SciTE? I think it gets used often for this sort of thing. It's very lightweight, but from what I understand, is easy to add functionality to. It's not really an IDE, but it's more of a text-editor component that you could use as the basis for a simple IDE. I've used SciTE, which is a sort of demo text editor of Scintilla's capabilities. It's simple, but also quite fast and responsive.
I suppose another option would be to write plugins for existing IDEs such as Eclipse or Netbeans. Both of these IDEs support many languages just through 3rd-party plugins. Going this route means you don't need to build a complete UI, just the components needed to make your language work.
The downside of building plugins for an extendable IDE (such as NetBeans or Eclipse) is that you are at the mercy of the IDE developers. If they change the way the platform works, you must ensure that your plugins still work with the new versions. Sometimes this can become a major problem.
All of these options should work on Linux as well as Windows.
This sounds like a very ambitious project and I wish you luck.
I don't use linux too often, I use a Mac and my favorite text editor is called TextMate because it has snippets, code completion, and a whole mess of other features. The closest thing to it that I've found on linux is called Scribes.
There's always Emacs or Vim (I lean towards Vim, but that's just my opinion :) ). Neither are IDEs per se, but both are very extensible and it shouldn't be too hard to create settings for each that will aid people writing scripts in your language.
A project is looming whereby some code that I will be writing may be deployed on any hardware that potential clients happen to have. Its a business application that will be running 24/7 so I envisage that most of the host machines will be server type boxes but smaller clients might, for example, just have a simple PC.
A few more details about the code I will be writing:
There will be no GUI.
It will need to communicate with another bespoke 'black box' device over an Ethernet network.
It will need to communicate with a MySQL database somewhere on the network.
I don't have any performance concerns as a) the number of communications with the black box will be small, around 1 per second, and the amount of data exchanged will be tiny (around 1K each time), b) the number of read/writes with the database will be small, around 5 per minute, and again the amount of data exchanged will be tiny and c) the processing that needs to be performed is fairly simplistic.
Nothing I'm doing is very 'close to the metal' so I don't want to use languages that are too low level. Ease of development and ease of deployment are my main priorities.
I'm not expecting there to be a perfect solution so I can live with things like, for example, having to have slightly different configuration files for Windows machines than for Linux boxes etc. I would like to avoid having to compile the software for each host machine if possible though.
I would value your thoughts as to which development language you think is most suitable.
Cheers,
Jim
I'd go with a decent scripting language such as Python, Perl or Ruby personally. All of those have decent library support, can communicate easily with both local and remote MySQL databases and are pretty platform independent.
The first thing we need to know is what language skills you already have? This is likely to be a fairly big determiner of what choice you would ideally make.
If I was doing this I'd suggest Java for a couple of reasons:
It will run almost anywhere and meet the requirements you've outlined.
Its not an esoteric language so there will be plenty of developers.
I already know how to program in it!
Probably the most extensive library ecosystem of any of the development platforms.
Also note that you could write it in another language on the JVM if your more comfortable with Ruby or Python.
Sounds like Perl or Python would fit the bill perfectly. Which one you choose would depend on the expertise of the people building and supporting the system.
On the subject of scripting languages versus Java, I have been disappointed with developing command line tools using Java. You can't directly execute them, you have to (1) compile them and (2) write a shell script to execute the jar file, this script may differ between platforms. I recommend Python because it runs anywhere and it's got a great SQL library, mysql-python. The library is ready to use on Windows and Linux. Python also has a lot less boilerplate, you'll write fewer lines of code to do the same thing.
EDIT: when I talked about JARs being executable or not, I was talking about whether they are directly executable be the OS. You can, of course, double click on them to run them if your file manager is set up to do so. But when you're in a terminal window and you want to run a java program, you have to "java -jar myapp.jar" instead of the usual "./myapp.jar". In Python one just runs "./myapp.py" and doesn't have to worry about compiling or class paths.
If all platforms are standard PCs (or at least run Linux), then Python should be considered. You can compile it yourself if no package exists for your version. Also, you can strip the standard library easily from things that aren't available and which you don't need (sound support, for example).
Python doesn't need lots of resources, it's easy to learn and read.
If you know Perl, you can try that. If you don't use Perl on a daily basis, then don't. The Perl syntax is hard to remember and after a week, you'll wonder what the code did, even if you wrote it yourself.
Perl may be of help to you as it is available for many platforms and you can get almost any functionality by simply installing modules from CPAN.
Python or Java. They both are easy to deploy on both the server environments and the desktop environments you mention - i.e., Linux/Solaris and Windows.
Perl is also a nice choice, but it depends on how well you know Perl, how well other people that will maintain your code know Perl, and number of desktop users that are savvy enough to handle an install of the Windows Perl version(s).
As Java supports Python via Jython, I'd go with a JVM requirement myself, but I'd personally go with a Java application all the way for such a system you describe.
I would say use C or C++. They are platform independant, though you will have to compile for each platform.
Or use Java. That runs in a Virtual Machine so is truely cross platform and not a slow level as C.
Hi I mostly do C++, Objective-C programming. And I found Xcode plus an auto completion/macro plugin (Completion Dictionary) quite adequate.
However, all people seem to praise over their pure text editors. I tried Textmate for a bit; liked its simplicity but dislike its files/framework handling.
Am I missing something here? Or, do Vim or Emacs have auto-completion as good as Xcode?
Pull up a chair son, let me speak on this.
Well before the days of Xcode, there was VIM and Emacs. I know it's hard to imagine, but it's true.
Many people got accustomed to VIM/Emacs, and thus continue to use it.
Emacs is extremely customizable, and offers pretty much everything you can imagine (including a built in shrink and the towers of hanoi). You can easily call compilers from Emacs, and create your own extensions as needed.
VIM has incredible regex engine (Emacs does as well) and is very handy because (VI) comes with pretty much every Unix OS, and works fantastically if you don't have arrow keys (yeah yeah, real old school). People are very good with using keys to move around documents, without having to use the mouse.
The same is true with Emacs as well, but for me, I find cursor motion much easier on VIM.
The text editor war is fueled with as much religious zealotry as the Mac vs PC war, and the answer is pick the best that works for you. If you like Xcode, great, continue to use it, however good luck if you're ever forced to work on a PC or Linux machine. Personally, I use Emacs to code, VIM to manipulate text and Firefox to look at lolcats.
I really don't understand why emacs props up when people talk about text editors. In my experience it's more like eclipse (or one of those other platforms/IDEs) than vi because it is an environment, which happens to be good at text editing.
As an IDE emacs features version control, live compilation, spell checking, auto completion, debugging, code browsing and lots more for a wide variety of SDKs. For the rest of your computing needs it's an email/news/web/irc/twitter/xmmp client, calendar, organizer, calculator, terminal emulator, remote editing, speadsheets, games etc. etc. etc.
After Dijkstra: "Emacs is no more about text editing than astronomy is about telescopes"
What you are missing is that Emacs and Vim are actually IDEs.
vi is ubiquitous on UNIX systems, and Emacs almost so. AFAIK, Xcode is on one platform.
Having a powerhouse IDE is a great thing, but everyone should have a smattering of skill to keep them functional on any platform they might be dropped into.
It's all up to your preference.
Some people like to work with lightweight texteditors like (g)vim, emacs, pico, etc.
Others like to work with IDEs like MS Visual Studio, Eclipse, Xcode.
As long as your environment is compatible with the text editing technology, it's all up to you.
By the way, I like working with Eclipse and vim because they are what I used to learn programming ;)
The main reason you seem to think people like Emacs/Vim is for code completion. People like Emacs/Vim cause they are both MADE for editing text. You have control and options available to you that other editors just don't have. Once you get REALLY good at using one of these programs you want these key bindings / commands available everywhere. Macros, regular expressions, moving around by search/word/paragraph/function, interfacing with version control, complicated undo/redo and copy/paste functions and extension options are just a FEW of the things that these editors do really really well.
Code completion is just one of MANY things that can make writing programming easier. Emacs/Vim can handle ALL of them (natively or by exntensions).
No, not really. It's a matter of preference really. I liked working in Visual Studio 6, but nowadays the newer versions are just too bloated. So if I can do something outside VS I usually do it without opening the whole IDE box.
On windows I like notepad2 and gvim. I've customized vim to the point where it suits my needs perfectly, so I don't have to think about what and where.
But, it's good to mention that (you could also figure that out by yourself by reading these kinda posts) a lot of users uses vim/emacs/... 'cause of the heard-its-the-best/cool-factor/actual-usability. So if it doesn't suit you, don't use it. Nobody's gonna look you the wrong way cause of that.
For me most the two most important features are:
Emacs key bindings, as that is what my fingers are compatible to.
Open-source, for the freedom it provides. Being tied to one platform is anathema.
These days I mostly use Eclipse for programming (set to Emacs keybindings) and FSF Emacs for reading mail and some occasional LaTeX.
I personally love emacs. I've used vim and a handful of IDEs. Vim and emacs both have great communities where people are willing to code up features for just about any language. I don't know of any IDEs that, say, support Haskell. It all depends on what's important to you. Both have extension languages, though IMO, emacs lisp is the better of the two. The ability to ignore the mouse is the main thing I like as well. So many IDEs also feature emacs and vim compatibilty modes or extensions. They both have a large time investment, but both are worth it. Sooner or later, you will choose which suits you, vim/emacs/IDE, and then stick to improving your skills with it.
When you are using Emacs, you can install Cedet or Autocomplete package to use name completion for some languages (C++ is pretty good, while Obj-C is still not supported), in addition to rich editor functionality
emacs is powerful. I use emacs with vimpluse.el so that I can use the vim key bindings with all the emacs features.
I use Vim mostly for the input model. Once you have become proficient in the input model, going back to an editor where you are forced to use a mouse feels clumsy and ultimately (at least to me) irritating. It is a lot more efficient to type "ci'" to alter all the text between two single quotes, then taking your hands off of the home row, finding and selecting the text with the mouse and finally hitting 'delete'.
I have only used Emacs briefly and while I prefer Vim, I am jealous of some of its features. But I ultimately went with Vim because I find the chord-input model that Emacs uses to put unnecessary strain on my fingers.
I have Xcode and TextMate and I don't use them although I know they can be very powerful. Instead I use Vim (or MacVim if you prefer). Why ?
Because it's light, fast, addictive, powerful, customizable...
I could go on like this for a long time but the most important thing is that I can do all I want with Vim.
Whatever the editor you use, the best editor is the one you master (almost) perfectly.
I don't use vi to do my coding; however, I do, when available, use vi emulation in my editors. When I am doing Java coding in IntelliJ I use the IdeaVIM plugin which gives me vi support in IntelliJ's editor. This means I almost never have to take my fingers off of home row. I navigate with the keyboard (h,j,k,l), cut/paste with yy, dd, etc. And of course when I do need the power of a full feature GUI editor vi emulation doesn't keep me from using those features.
It drives me nuts that XCode doesn't have vi emulation in its editor. Seems like functionality that any decent IDE should have.
TextMate just feels lighter to me. Off the top of my head:
It has great support for jumping between files and methods within files. Think Quicksilver for files/methods. With a file open for editing, hit command-shift-t to bring up a floating panel listing all the methods in the file. Start typing and the list filters itself down. Select the method you want and hit return to jump to it. Xcode has something like this but the sting matching is more literal.
Lots of built in text expansion. Type a trigger and hit tab to have it expanded. For example, on a new line typing m and then hitting tab creates a method for you. The tab key then intelligently jumps to the various parts of the inserted text so that you can edit them in place. These are such a huge timesaver it's ridiculous.
Nice plugin support for Subversion and Git. Probably other VCSs too.
Completions (like Xcode) and history. TextMate allows you to tab-complete basically any text that exists in the file. So once you type a variable name or method call once, you can use tab to auto-complete it anywhere in that same file.
Smart past board with history, nice built in diffs, theme support, good keyboard support, find in files and across projects (with RegEx) and probably more that I'm forgetting.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
Personally, I love TextMate, because it's actually a really lightweight solution. Granted, I have not used Vim or Emacs in depth (I like my GUIs)...although I do thoroughly enjoy the Control-based cursor navigation (Control-A is beginning of line, Control-E is end of line, Control-F and Control-B are forward and backward, etc). So between Xcode and TextMate, I use Xcode for most of my serious development, but if I just need to quickly edit a source file I can be up and coding before Xcode even finishes launching (it helps that TextMate can remember which files were previously opened and restore them). So for some lightweight text editing, TextMate is my choice.
Above that, TextMate's plug-in support is amazing; it provides full support (syntax coloring, building & running, etc.) for so many different things (shell scripts, CSS, SQL, LaTeX, and much more) that Xcode doesn't provide. When I need to brush up a quick program in Java or tweak a webpage, it's a lot easier then using Vim and then building from the Terminal.
My only complaint with TextMate is that the console is read-only, so I can't build anything interactive. That, and the fact that it doesn't seem to support C99 keywords (for loops and booleans) in a plain-C file.
I am a long time vim user, and find that I really like Komodo edit with the Vim emulation turned on. Thus, I get all of convenience of the vim key bindings (to which I have become so accustomed that a recent MS Word document that I recently produced had no less than three ":w"s in it) plus the well implemented code completion for C++, Python, javascript, etc.
I don't use XCode because I don't develop OS X specific applications very much and so the benefit of the OS X framework integration isn't large enough to outweigh the cost of not having vim key bindings and the "do it our way or not at all" approach that Apple takes toward development.
Xcode is more of an IDE, whereas emacs and vi are for pure text (though they have massive extensions to them). This is preferable if you're on an older system or over an SSH. In addition, they're pretty much on every UNIX based computer, whereas XCode is proprietary Apple software.
You might have a look at my essay on the subject Why Emacs?. While it's more or less Emacs-centric some of the points made in it would apply to vim and TextMate as well.
I tried vim a long time ago and for one reason or another "I didn't get it". Then after trying other editors over the years I reached a point where no editor seemed to do what I wanted it to do. After voicing my frustration to a friend he recommended that I try vim....and I am so glad that I took another look because it was the answer to a question that I didn't know how to ask! I have used Vim/MacVim ever since...
here my configuration:
https://github.com/RandyMcMillan/QuickVim
I use Xcode as well because it is nice to have code completion.
XVim is good for people that want a modal/vim feel in the Xcode editor:
https://github.com/JugglerShu/XVim
But when it comes to my day to day editing Vim wins every time. That is why I have the QuickVim repo is so that I can quickly reproduce my environment anytime/anywhere.
I have a list of licenses for editors like TextMate, etc..but it is likely that I won't ever use them since I can use vim for free and customize it to my exact specifications.
Heavy Vim user here. I generally find the text manipulation capability of Vi/Vim far superior than traditional editors which lack things like:
visual mode: e.g. prefixing 5 lines with comment //
macros: e.g. surround 3rd to 5th words in a line with quotation marks, repeat for 100 lines
multiple registers: think 36 registers to copy and paste
delete{motion}: e.g. delete from cursor up to the next occurrence of 'initWithFrame'
These are just a few examples that Vim has XCode text editing beat hands down
For Objective-C. I tend to install a Vim plugin on the IDE to get the best of both worlds - native build / UI components support.
Incidentally. Emac keyboard bindings (e.g. CTRL-A to go to top of line) are supported in a lot of native (Coacoa) text fields on Mac. Including the one you're using for typing answers on stackoverflow :D
XVim works with XCode. IdeaVim for AppCode
As already discussed in "Lua as a general-purpose scripting language?" Lua currently probably isn't the best scripting language for the desktop environment.
But what do you think about the future? Will Lua get so popular that there will soon be enough libraries to be able to use it like Python, Ruby or something similar?
Or will it simply stay in it's WoW niche and that's it?
I think it has a great future, a lot of projects are starting to adopt it for it's simplicity and usefulness.
Example: Awesome WM (Window Manager)
The project recently released version 3, incorporating a new configuration system completely written in Lua. Allowing you to literally write your configuration file as a program, loops, booleans, data structures.
Personally I love the syntax and the flexibility of such a system, I think it has great potential.
I wouldn't be surprised if it became more popular in the future.
Brian G
I suppose the answer starts with 'It depends how you want to use it...'.
If you're writing the common business app (fetch the data from the database, display the data in a web page or window, save the data to the database), Lua already has what you need.
The Kepler Project contains goodies for web development. Check out their modules to see some of the available libraries - there's network, MVC, DBMS access, XML, zip, WSAPI, docs...
As an example web app, check out Sputnik.
For desktop UI, there's wxLua - Lua hooks for wxWidgets.
ORM is conspicuously missing but that didn't stop people from developing in other languages before ORM was available.
If you're looking for specialized libraries - scientific, multimedia , security - don't count Lua out before you check LuaForge.
When it comes down to it, there's nothing in Lua's design that prevents general purpose use. It just happens to be small, fast, and easy to embed... so people do.
Uh? I would say instead WoW is a niche in the Lua ecosystem... The world of Lua doesn't revolve around WoW, there are lot of applications, some big like Adobe Lightroom (to take a non game), using Lua.
Lua is initially a scripting language, in the initial sense, ie. made to be embedded in an application to script it. But it is also designed as an extensible language, so we will see progressively more and more bindings of various libraries for various purposes.
But you will never get an official big distribution with batteries included, like Python or Perl, because it is just not the philosophy of the authors.
Which doesn't prevent other people to make distributions including lot of features out of the box (for Windows, particularly, where it is difficult to build the softwares).
Lot of people already use it for general system-level scripting, desktop applications, and such anyway.
There are more and more libraries for Lua.
If you are a Windows user, have look at Lua for Windows. It comes with "batteries included" (wxLua, LuaCURL, LuaUnit, getopt, LuaXML, LPeg...).
Very usefull!
It's 2017, 9 years after this question was first asked, and lua is now being heavily used in the field of machine learning due to the Torch library.
I really like it as an embedded language. It's small, very easy to use and embed and mostly does what I need right out of the box. It's also similar enough to most languages that it has never really been an issue for me. I also like how easy it is to redefine and add base functions and keywords to the language to suit whatever needs my application has.
I have used it in the WoW area but I've also found it useful as a generic scripting language for a number of different applications I've worked on, including as a type of database trigger. I like Ruby and Python and other more full-featured scripting languages but they're not nearly as convenient for embedding in small applications to give users more options for customizing their environments.
being comfortable as a shell language has nothing to do with being a great general purpose language.
i, for one, don't use it embedded in other applications; i write my applications in Lua, and anything 'extra' is a special-purpose library, either in Lua or in C.
Also, being 'popular' isn't so important. in the Lua-users list periodically someone appears that says "Lua won't be popular unless it does X!", and the usual answer is either: "great!, write it!", or "already discussed and rejected".
I think the great feature of Lua is, that it is very easily extensible. It is very easy to add the Lua interpreter to a program of your own (e.g. one written in C, C++ or Obj-C) and with just a few lines of code, you can give Lua access to any system resource you can think of. E.g. Lua offers no function to do xxx. Write one and make it available to Lua. But it's also possible the other way round. Write your own Lua extension in a language of your choice (one that is compilable), compile it into a native library, load the library within Lua and you can use the function.
That said, Lua might not be the best choice as a standalone crossplatform language. But Lua is a great language to add scripting support to your application in a crossplatform manner (if your app is crossplatform, the better!). I think Lua will have a future and I think you can expect that this language will constantly gain popularity in the long run.
Warhammer Online, and World of Warcraft use it for their addon language I believe.
I think it's hot! I'm just no good at it!
Well, greetings from 2022.
It is already a general purpose language. Today you can even serve pages using OpenResty, extend games, read databases or create scripts as shellscript replacements.
There are a plenty of libraries "modules" for Lua, many ways to achieve what you are wanting and Lua 5.4 is even faster.
The "extendable and extensive" nature of Lua, accostumed people to think it should only be used as plugin or extension. In Linux, by example, you can shebang a file with lua-any, make it executable and run like any system script. Or you can make a folder app like Python or virtualenv using Lupe. Lua 5.3 also gained impressive performance improvements.
Also there are many good tools like IUP to create native windows in Lua for Mac, BSD, Linux and Windows and side environments like Terra that lets you use Lua with its counterpart Terra and write compiled programs. Lua now, is more than a extension language, it has its own universe.