Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I develop a library that is used by other software. Typically this library ends up packaged in Debian, Fedora, etc., and its "reverse-dependencies" also end up packaged and using it.
So, I guess this makes me an "upstream maintainer." I simply use autotools to produce a tarball, and packagers then use that to produce .deb files, etc. Now, something that has bothered me for quite some time is the disconnect between maintainers and packagers. I feel like every time I do a release, even if it is simply a bugfix release, I am potentially causing headaches for everyone down the chain.
Possible problems:
I introduced a bug that wasn't caught in testing, even though I tried extensively to test various configurations -- I don't have unlimited testing resources and it is a small library so I am mostly on my own although there are 1 or 2 other interested people who help out, but generally only test on one platform.
I forgot to bump the version number, causing confusion
I did bump the version number but forgot to bump the SO version (you know, the thing that specifies API/ABI compatibility, and is independent from the software release version)
I made a small change but accidentally caused an API incompatibility without thinking (e.g. made something "const" that should have been all along, didn't realize it would break people's code)
I made a small change but accidentally caused an ABI incompatibility -- e.g., changed a constant in a header file, wasn't thinking and forgot that this would be "baked in" in software compiled against a previous version
I have done pretty much all of these things at some time or other in the past. Due to these previous mistakes, these days I probably spend more time testing than actually developing, and still end up making mistakes. The mistakes are often not that bad, after all people understand, mistakes happen, but they sometimes cause people to drop using the library, without even talking to me or communicating on the mailing list, which sucks -- if those people were so interested, it would be cool if they had helped test before I published a release -- but anyways, you get the idea.
So, rather than just compiling and running the unit tests, my testing process now involves some pretty extensive steps. In particularly, I am now using "apt-cache rdepends" to find software that uses my library, and I install it and switch the binary out to test for ABI compatibility. Then, I uninstall it, and "apt-get source" it, and compile it against the new version to test for API compatibility.
This kind of testing involves,
understanding other peoples software and figuring out where and how it exercises my code
compiling other peoples software, including figuring out their other dependencies and how to get everything working -- for large projects this can be a nightmare.
some projects using my software are actually plugins for other projects, meaning I have to additionally get the host program working
many projects using my library are GUI-oriented, so I have to navigate and learn some software I don't even know or use, and then guess when I have got it to a place where it is actually calling out to my library
my library works on Linux, Windows, and OS X, and often I don't have enough machines and operating systems around to test on. For example, a huge problem with my last release was a bug that only showed up in Linux on x86_64. I had tested on Linux i386, and OS X 64-bit, but somehow these platforms didn't show the bug, it was particular to the Linux-64-bit combination which I had neglected testing because I didn't have the right hardware and assumed I'd covered enough ground.
As you can imagine this is not a light task, and makes for huge delays before publishing a given release, delaying the dissemination of bugfixes, etc. The worst thing is that my project is not even a large library, and is a hobby project of mine, so all of this feels like huge overhead just for something I do in my spare time. I'd rather be developing features than just defending against my own potential mistakes for every little change I make. But, it currently has 42 rdepends listed in Ubuntu, to give you an idea, and I'm proud that it is useful to other people so I want to be able to develop and improve it without worrying so much about breaking things for everyone.
My question is, how can I improve the efficiency of this testing process? Are there for example any tools that will automatically compile "rdepends" packages against a new version of my library and give me a report? Or somehow download compiled binaries of rdepends and test loading them against my ABI without actually necessarily requiring me to navigate the GUI of some unknown software?
how can I improve the efficiency of this testing process?
The main problem is communication, apart the fact that you lack scripts that automate the process. You can do pre-releases of your packages, mailing the distributions that your library supports, etc. or instead of maintaining the packages yourself insert them into some mayor Distro and let some experimented maintainer do the stuff.
You can always break people stuff, just don't do it so frequently. Remember that people need stability in some certain sense so you may document very well each change so people using your library can't say you didn't tell them.
About tools... you should find your own pace. Maybe some buildbots (AFAIK some projects lend build bots), maybe script automatizing the process you build stuff, etc. etc. etc., did I said etc.? The problem is too broad and there are effectively too many solutions that makes any suggestion non-viable. You may want to check https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/150466/104338 as "some" methods but, again, you should find your own pace.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
This may be too opinionated, but what I'm trying to understand why some companies mandate the use of an IDE. In college all I used was vim, although on occasion I used netbeans for use with Java. Netbeans was nice because it did code completion and had some nice templates for configuration of some the stranger services I tried.
Now that my friends are working at big companies, they are telling me that they are required to use eclipse or visual studio, but no one can seem to give a good reason why.
Can someone explain to me why companies force their developers into restricted development environments?
IDE vs Notepad
I've written code in lots of different IDEs and occasionally in notepad. You may totally love notepad, but at some point using notepad is industrial sabatoge, kind of like hiring a gardener who shows up with a spoon instead of a shovel and a thimble instead of a bucket. (But who knows, maybe the most beautiful garden can be made with a spoon and a thimble, but it sure isn't going to be fast)
IDE A vs IDE B
Some IDE's have team and management features. For example, in Visual Studio, there is a screen that finds all the TODO: lines in source code. This allows for a different workflow that may or may not exist in other IDEs. Ditto for source control integration, static code analysis, etc.
IDE old vs IDE new
Big organizations are slow to change. Not really a programming related problem.
Because companies standardize on tools, as well as platforms--if your choice of tools is in conflict with their standards then you can either object, silently use your tool, or use the required tool.
All three are valid; provided your alternative doesn't cause other team-members issues, and provided that you have a valid argument to make (not just whining).
For example: I develop in Visual Studio 2008 as required by work, but use VS2010 whenever possible. Solutions/Projects saved in 2010 can't be opened in 2008 without some manual finagling--so I can't use the tool of my choice because it would cause friction for other developers. We also are required to produce code according to documented standards which are enforced by Resharper and StyleCop--if I switched to a different IDE I would have more difficulty in ensuring the code I produced was up to our standards.
If you're good at using vim and know everything there is to know about it, then there is no reason to switch to an IDE. That said, many IDEs will have lots of useful features that come standard. Maintaining an install of Eclipse is a lot easier than maintaining an install of Vim with plugins X, Y, and Z in order to simulate the same capabilities.
IntelliSense is incredibly useful. I realize that vim has all sorts of auto-completion, but it doesn't give me a list of overloaded methods and argument hints.
Multiple panes to provide class hierarchies/outlines, API reference, console output, etc.. can provide you more information than is available in just multiple text buffers. Yes, I know that you have the quickfix window, but sometimes it's just not enough.
Compile as you type. This doesn't quite work for C++, but is really nice in Java and C#. As soon as I type a line, I'll get feedback on correctness. I'm not arrogant enough as a programmer to assume that I never make syntax errors, or type errors, or forget to have a try/catch, or... (the list goes on)
And the most important of all...
Integrated Debuggers. Double click to set a break point, right click on a variable to set a watch, have a separate pane for changing values on the fly, detailed exception handling all within the same program.
I love vim, and will use it for simple things, or when I want to run a macro, or am stuck with C code. But for more complicated tasks, I'll fire up Eclipse/Visual Studio/Wing.
Sufficiently bad developers are greatly assisted by the adoption of an appropriately-configured IDE. It takes a lot of extra time to help each snowflake through his own custom development environment; if somebody doesn't have the chops to maintain their own dev environment independently, it gets very expensive to support them.
Corporate IT shops are very bad at telling the difference between "sufficiently bad" and "sufficiently good" developers. So they just make everybody do the same thing.
Disclaimer: I use Eclipse and love it.
Theoretically, it would decrease the amount of training needed to get an unexperienced developer to deal with the problems of a particular IDE if all the team uses that one tool.
Anyway, most of the top companies don't force developers to use some specific IDE for now...
I agree with this last way of thinking: You don't need your team to master one particular tool, having team knowledge in many will improve your likelyhood to know better ways to solve a particular roblems.
For me, I use Visual Studio with ReSharper. I cannot be nearly as productive (in .Net) without it. At least, nobody has ever shown me a way to be more productive... Vim, that is great. You can run Vim inside of Visual Studio + R# and get all the niceties that the IDE provides, like code navigation, code completion and refactoring.
Same reason we use a hammer to nail things instead of rocks. It's a better tool.
Now if you are asking why you are forced to use a specific IDE over another, well that's a different topic.
A place that uses .NET will use Visual Studio 99% of the time, at least that's what I've seen. And I haven't found anything out there that is better than Visual Studio for writing .NET applications.
There is much more than code completion into an IDE:
debugging facilities
XML validation
management of servers
automatic imports
syntax checking
graphical modeling
support of popular technologies like Hibernate, TestNG or Spring
integration of source code management
indexing of file names for quick opening
follow "links" in code: implementation, declaration
integration of source code control
searching for classes or methods
code formatting
process monitoring
one click/button debugging/building
method/variable/field/... renaming
etc
Nothing to do with incompetence from the programmers. Anybody would be A LOT less productive using vim for developing a big Java EE application.
How big were you projects at college? A couple of classes in a couple of files? Or rather a couple of hundreds of classes in a couple of hundreds of files?
Today I had the "honor" of looking at a file in a rather large project where the programmer opted to use vi (yes vi, not vim) and a handcrafted commandline compiler call (no make). The file contained on function spanning about 900 lines with a series of if-else-if-else-constructs (because that way you have all your code in one place!!!!!!). Macho-Programmer at his finest.
OK there are very good reasons for enforcing a particular toolset within a production environment:
Companies want to standardize everything so that if an employee leaves they can replace that person with minimal effort.
Commercial IDEs provide a complex enough environment to support a single interface for a variety of development needs and supporting varying levels of code access. For instance the same file-set could be used by the developer, by non-programmers (graphics designers etc.) and document writers.
Combine this with integrated version control and code management without the need of someone learning a particular version control system, all of a sudden IDEs start to look nicer and nicer.
It also streamlines maintenance of build systems in a multi-homed environment.
IDEs are easier to give tutorials to via phone or video, and probably come with those.
etc. etc. and so forth.
The business decision making behind enforcing a standardized environment goes beyond the preference of a single programmer or for that matter perhaps the understanding of the programming team.
Using an IDE helps an employee to work with huge projects with minimal training. Learn a few key combos - and you will comfortably work with multi-thousand-file project in Eclipse, IDE handles most of the work for you under the hood. Just imagine how many years of learning it takes to feel comfortable developing such projects in Vim.
Besides, with an IDE it is easy to support common coding standards across the entire team: just set a couple of options and an IDE will force you to write code in a standardized way.
Plus, IDE gives a few added bonuses like refactoring tools (especially good in Eclipse), integrated debugging (especially good in Visual Studio), intellisense, integrated unit tests, integrated version control system etc.
The advantages and disadvantages of using an IDE also greatly depends on the development platform. Some platforms are geared towards the use of IDEs, others are not. As a rule of thumb, you should use IDE for Java and .Net development (unless you're extremely advanced); you should not use IDE for ruby, python, perl, LISP etc development (unless you're extremely new to these languages and associated frameworks).
Features like these aren't available in vim:
Refactoring
Integrated debuggers
Knowing your code base as an integrated whole (e.g., change a Java class name; have the change reflected in a Spring XML configuration)
Being able to run an app server right inside the IDE so you can deploy and debug your code.
Those are the reasons I choose IntelliJ. I could go back to sticks and bones, but I'd be a lot less productive.
As said before, the question about using an IDE is basicaly productivity. However there is some questions that should be considered by the company when choosing a specific IDE. that includes:
Company culture
Standardize use of tool, making it accessible for all developers. That easies training, reduces costs and improve the speed of learn curve.
Requirements from specific contract. As an example, there are some development packages that are fully supported (i.e. plugins) by some IDE and not by anothers. So, if you are working with the support contract you will want to work with the supported IDE. A concrete example is when you are working with not common OS like VxWorks, where you can work with the Workbench (that truely is an eclipse with lot of specific plugins for eclipse).
Company policy (and also I include the restriction on company budget)
Documentation relating to the IDE
Comunity (A strong one can contribute and develop still further the IDE and help you with your doubts)
Installed Base (no one wants to be the only human to use that IDE on the world)
Support from manufacturers (an IDE about to be discontinued probably will not be a good option)
Requirements from the IDE. (i.e. cross platform or hardware requirements that are incompatible with some machines of the company)
Of course, there is a lot more. However, I think that this short list help you to see that there is some decisions that are not so easy to take, when we are talking about money and some greater companies.
And if you start using your own IDE think what mess will be when another developer start doing maintenance into your code. How do you think will the application be signed at the version manager ? Now think about a company with 30+ developers each using its own IDE (each with its own configuration files, version and all that stuff)...
http://xkcd.com/378/
Real programmers use the best tools available to get the job done. Some companies have licenses for tools but there's nothing saying you can't license/use another IDE and then just have the other IDE open to copy/paste what you've done in your local IDE.
The question is a bit open-ended, perhaps you can make it community wiki...
As you point out, the IDE can be useful, or even a must have, for some operations, like refactoring, or even project exploring: I use Eclipse at my work, on Java projects, and I find very useful to get a list of all occurrences of the usage of a public method or a class in a project. Likely, I appreciate to be able to rename it from where it is defined, and having all these occurrences automatically updated.
The fact I have the JavaDoc displayed when hovering over a name is very nice too. Like autocompletion, jump to a class name, etc.
And, of course, debugging facilities...
Now, usage of Eclipse isn't mandatory in our shop! Some years ago, some people used the Delphi IDE (forgot its name), I tried NetBeans, etc. But I think we de facto standardized on Eclipse, but it was a natural evolution rather than a company policy. And we often just open files in a text editor when we need a quick update...
I need to build a fairly simple app but it needs to work on both PC and Mac.
It also needs to be redistributable on a disc or usb drive as a standalone desktop app.
Initially I thought AIR would be perfect for this (it ticks all the API requirements), but the difficulty is making it distributable, as the app would require the AIR runtime to be installed to run.
I came across Shu Player as an option as it seems to be able to package the AIR runtime with the app and do a (silent?) install.
However this seems to break the T&C from Adobe (as outlined here) so I'm not sure about the legality.
Another option could be Zinc but I haven't tested it so I'm not sure how well it'll fit the bill.
What would you recommend or suggest I check out?
Any suggestion much appreciated
EDIT:
There's a few more discussions on mono usage (though no real conclusion):
Here and Here
EDIT2:
Titanium could also fit the bill maybe, will check it out.
Any more comments from anyone?
EDIT3 (one year on): It's actually been almost a year since I posted that question but it seems some people still come across it every now and then, and even contribute an answer, even a year later.
Thought I'd update the question a bit. I did not get around to try the tcl/tk option at the end, time constraint and the uncertainty of the compatibility to different os versions led me to discard that as an option.
I did try Titanium for a bit but though the first impressions were ok, they really are pushing the mobile platform more than anything, and imho, the desktop implementation suffers a bit from that lack of attention. There are also some report of problems with some visual studio runtime on some OSs (can't remember the details now though).. So discarded that too.
I ended up going with XULRunner. The two major appeals were:
Firefox seems to work out of the box on most OS version, so I took it as good faith that a XULRunner app would likely be compatible with most system. Saved me a lot of testing and it turned out that it did run really well on all platforms, there hasn't been a single report of not being able to start the app
It's Javascript baby! Language learning curve was minimal. The main thing to work out is what the additional xpcom interfaces are and how to query them.
On the down side:
I thought troubleshooting errors was a sometimes difficult task, the venkman debugger is kinda clunky, ended up using the console more than anything.
The sqlite interface is a great asset for a desktop app but I often struggled to find relevant error infos when something didn't work - maybe i was doing it wrong.
It took a little while to work out how to package the app as a standalone app for both PC and Mac. The final approach was to have a "shell" mac app and a shell pc app and a couple of "compile" script that would copy the shells and add the custom source code onto it in the correct location.
One last potential issue for some, due to the nature of xulrunner apps, your source code will be deployed with the app, you can use obfuscation if you want but that's something to keep in mind if you want to protect your intellectual property
All in all, great platform for a cross-platform app. I'd highly recommend it.
Tcl/Tk has one of the best packaging solutions out there. You can easily wrap a cross-platform application (implemented in a fully working virtual filesystem) with a platform-specific binary to get a single file executable for just about any modern desktop system. Search google for the terms starkit, starpack and tclkit. Such wrapped binaries are tiny in comparison to many executables these days.
Many deride Tk as being "old" or "immature" but it's one of the oldest, most stable toolkits out there. It uses native widgets when such widgets exist.
One significant drawback of Tcl/Tk, however, is that it lacks any sort of printing support. If your application needs to print you'll have to be a bit creative. There are platform-specific solutions, and the ability to generate postscript documents, and libraries to create pdfs, but it takes a little extra effort.
Java is probably your best bet, although not all Windows PCs will necessarily have Java (most should). JavaFX is new enough you can't count on it - you'll probably find a lot of machines running Java 1.5 or (shudder) 1.4. I believe recent Mac OS still ships with 1.5 (latest version may have changed to 1.6).
Consider JavaFX
It would run everywhere with a modern JRE ..!
AIR could be an option, but only if you don't mind distributing two different files (the offline runtime installer and your app), and expecting the user to run one and then the other. You do have to submit an online form at Adobe's site saying you agree to distribute the offline installer as-is, rather than digging out individual DLLs or whatever, before they give you the installer.
Unfortunately there's currently no way to get both an AIR app and the runtime to install from one file though. I'm not sure what the deal with Shu is, or whether it's doing anything that isn't kosher.
i would recommended zink. it has all the functionalities you require for desktop. however, the las time i used it it was a bit glitchy.
i was hung up by trying to write a 6M file to the disk. thought it trough and changed the code to write 512K chunks at a time (3min work, fast).
probably it still has some little annoying glitches like making you think on root lvl but the ease of use and the features are just way too sweet to ignore.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What do you consider the most rapid RAD environment for a working prototype? Not for debate.
language
platform
IDE
DB
(personal note)
Thank you.
P.S.1 I was pretty happy with PERL for back-end prototyping... I get stuck when dealing with the UI... it doesn't seem to come as easy...
It's all pretty subjective I guess, but as you asked 'what do you consider', so...
Delphi 7 onwards (technically object pascal or Delphi language, I guess)
Windows 2003/XP
version 7 is the classic, newer ones don't seem as easy to prototype stuff in (to me)
SQL Express
in comparison I've used VB6, MS VC++ (from a long time ago), FoxPro/Windows and Visual FoxPro, and a very small smattering of VS2005 (C#). For me, Delphi is the all-round king every time. :-)
For prototypes on Windows, Visual Basic is hard to beat. If you need to suppoort another platform (or multiple platforms), then Tcl/Tk is fairly productive, as well.
I've always considered Perl to be my prototyping language of choice, for a few reasons:
CPAN - There's a module for just about anything.
It's easy to create hacks to mimic, fake or do something quick and dirty.
It works everywhere.
I think "most rapid" is heavily subjective. A developer with many years in VB will likely be fastest at prototyping in VB. A Java developer in Java. Ruby in Ruby. The "most rapid", then, is going to be heavily skewed by the assets (code libraries, developer experience and tools) you already have in house.
What you define as a "prototype" also heavily affects things. Is a set of pseudo-working screen shots mocked up in Flash to have some clickability for navigation enough? What is the required feature set and what is the target audience for the prototype?
As you can see "best" is going to vary pretty widely. It's probably close to certain that the language will be high-level and the IDE tools are going to have nice UI designers (assuming the prototype has a UI). If you have a lot of DB work, then database wizards that do the SQL grunt work for you will save time and generate reasonable, if not optimized, objects. The platform would likely be whatever platform the prototype should be for - after all prototyping a Windows app under Linux or a Symbian app under Palm OS probably won't give you too much benefit.
VFP is great for prototyping. I've seen posts (sorry, don't have links) from Microsoft teams where they say WPF allows fast prototyping for them.
Enthought Python Distribution. You create the model of your problem in python and then you say "create a UI for that" in one line of code. If you don't like some parts of the UI, you override the defaults for those parts (and nothing else).
Doesn't get faster than that if you're doing a Desktop app.
The resulting prototype will work on Windows, Linux and Mac.
If you're looking for a web RAD, I suggest to give Grails or TurboGears a try. TurboGears is easier to use, Grails gives you access to the vast space of Java web frameworks (hard to beat).
I'd say Python with wxPython
I find that prototyping using the Netbeans GUI builder gives me a great start. I'm a Java programmer mostly though.
Try out Axure RP Pro.
We did give it a try and found that it to be really very good. It generates the whole prototype in HTML with a few JavaScripts so it becomes easy to distribute prototypes.
Do check it out.
Handcraft
When you prototype any GUI interactively in the browser, you can go from as low or high fidelity as you want. Handcraft is focused exactly on prototyping, so it does a whole lot less than IDE's intentionally.
For working prototype:
non-gui: python
gui: ruby on rails
For mockups don't use IDE but some specialized mockup tool, read this here on SO: Whats the best way to create interactive application prototypes?
For hybrid approach (mockups then code): QT designer is the only viable option I found, due to it's specific architecture
There you go.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This question on Cyclomatic Complexity made me think more about static code analysis. Analyzing code complexity and consistency is occasionally useful, and I'd like to start doing it more. What tools do you recommend (per language) for such analysis? Wikipedia has a large list of tools, but which ones have people tried before?
Edit: As David points out, this is not a completely unasked question when it comes to C/UNIX based tools.
I have been setting up a Hudson continuous integration (CI) build system for my Objective-C iPhone projects (iOS apps), and have compiled a varied list of tools that can be used to analyze my projects during a build:
Clang static analyzer: free, up-to-date stand-alone tool that catches more issues than the version of Clang included with Xcode 4. Active project. -- visit http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org
Doxygen: free documentation generation tool that also generates class dependency diagrams. Active project -- visit http://www.doxygen.nl
HFCCA (header-free cyclomatic complexity analyzer): free Python script to calculate code complexity, but without header files and pre-processors. Supports output in XML format for Hudson/Jenkins builds. Active project. -- visit http://code.google.com/p/headerfile-free-cyclomatic-complexity-analyzer
CLOC (count lines of code): free tool to count files, lines of code, comments, and blank lines. Supports diffing, so you can see the differences between builds. Active project. -- visit http://cloc.sourceforge.net
SLOCcount (source lines of code count): a free tool to count lines of code and estimate the costs and time associated with a project. Does not appear to be active. -- visit http://sourceforge.net/projects/sloccount and http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount
AnalysisTool: free code analysis tool that measures code complexity and also generates dependency diagrams. Not active. Does not seem to work with Xcode 4, but I would love to get it working. -- visit http://www.karppinen.fi/analysistool
For C and Objective-C, you can also use the LLVM/Clang Static Analyzer.
It's Open Source and under active development.
For .Net we use NDepend. It is a great tool and can be integrated to the build (we use CCNet).
http://www.ndepend.com/
HTH.
For C++, I use CppCheck. It seems to work fine.
I use the PMD plugin for Eclipse a lot. It's pretty nice, and very configurable. CheckStyle is also good, if you're looking for more of a style enforcer.
Checkstyle, Findbugs, and PMD all work pretty well in Java. I'm currently pretty happy with PMD running in NetBeans. It has a fairly simple GUI for managing what rules you want to run. It's also very easy to run the checker on one file, an entire package, or an entire project.
Obviously, the answer depends on the programming languages. UNO is good for C programs.
#Thomas Owens: I think you meant Splint.
Lint is the only one I have used at a previous position. It wasn't bad, most of the things it suggested were good catches, some didn't make much sense. As long you don't have a process in place to ensure that there are no lint errors or warnings, then it is useful to perhaps catch some otherwise hidden bugs
We use Coverity Prevent at Palm for C and C++ code analysis, and it's done a great job of uncovering some hidden bugs in our code. It also finds a lot of not likely to be hit problems, but it's easy to mark those as "will not fix" or "not a problem" in the code database that the tool generates. It is expensive, but the company occasionally does runs on open source projects and provides reports to the maintainers. They have a whitepaper about our use of the product on their site if you want to read more about our experience.
My admins are really cheap, so can I only use really cheap tools:
1) CCCC (C / C++ Code Counter): Various results related to number of lines (vs. lines of comments, cyclomatic complexity, Information flow, ...)
2) Semian: Fastest code duplication finder I ever tried.
3) LOC Metrix: Not very usefull but can help to make a point.
We use Programming Research's QAC for our C code. Works OK.
Recently we have been talking about checking out some of the more advanced and static/dynamic code analyzers like Coverity's Prevent or the analysis tool by GrammaTech.
They claim to not only do static analysis but also find runtime errors etc. One major selling point is supposed to be fewer false positives.
The only time I've ever used one of those tools is Split (C programming language). I thought it was helpful, but I was by no means a power user and I think I barely scratched the surface of what it could do.
I've used quite a few open-source and commercial static analysis tools across many languages and I find that the overall discussion fits under the umbrella of a concept known as technical debt (which this article goes into detail about).
However for a quick answer, here are my favorites per language:
Java: Google CodePro Analytix & Checkstyle
.NET: FxCop & StyleCop
C/C++: McCabe IQ
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I know and have Xcode, but I was wondering if there were any other complete development environments that support Objective-C? I'm not looking for solutions with vim or emacs, nor editors like BBEdit that support syntax highlighting, but a full fledged IDE with:
code completion
compilation
debugging
refactoring
Extra points for being cross platform, supporting vi key bindings and supporting other languages.
Note:
I've updated and accepted my answer below as Jetbrains has released Early Access for AppCode, their new Objective-C IDE. Since this has been a fairly popular question, I thought it worthwhile to update the information.
I recently learned that Jetbrains the make of my favorite IDE (Idea) may support Objective-C (though it is unclear how much it will work for iPhone/iPad development). See the thread here for early discussion on this.
In the last year or two, they have started adding additional language support both in their flagship IDE as well as specialized IDEs (for Ruby, Python, PHP). I guess this is just another step in the process. I for one would love to have another option other than XCode and I couldn't think of one that I'd love more.
This is obviously vaporware at the moment, but I think it is something to keep an eye on.
This is now a real product, albeit still in Early Access. See here for a the blog on this new product, which will give you pointers to check out the EAP.
UPDATE: AppCode has now been released and offers a true alternative to using Xcode for Objective-C and iPhone/iPad/Mac development. It does still rely on Interface Builder for layout and wiring of GUI components and uses the iOS simulator, but all coding, including a slew of refactorings, smart templating and static analysis, is available through App Code.
Textmate is an editor like BBEdit but it has the ability to run commands such as compilation, debugging, refactoring (though it will do so via XCode). It also has code completion.
In addition, you can write your own commands for Textmate that you can then run.
I have been searching for something like this that does NOT run on mac for quite a few months now. Unfortunately I think that due to the relative obscurity of the Objective-C language that nobody has ever bothered producing such a full featured IDE for it. Until now, and we only have Xcode.
Using JBuilder I fell in love with the auto-completion and displaying the function 'hints' on the screen while I type. I am that sort of person who remembers the 'ideas' better than the actual syntax and really benefits from knowing right then and there that the code I typed was correct, not having to find out a minute later at compile time. And then to have to try and figure out if I just misspelled something, or if I truly made a conceptual error due to a misunderstanding of proper use of the language. Code completion and hints have always saved time on this for me.
I know some people may look down on this and say the feature is unnecessary if you know what you're doing, but I never claimed to be better than anyone else.
I may have to just give up and try and get OS X running on my PC. Which doesnt bother me in the least, just the rebooting to go back and forth to windows. I've tried to run it virtualized under VMWare but XCode kept crashing :( That reminds me I am going to google 'leopard vmware' and see if any progress has been made in that area.
Another problem in designing a full code-completion system with objective C is that the syntax is a little more forgiving, I dont know the exact technical term (strongly typed?) it is much harder to say exactly what sort of object belongs in a certain parameter and ANY object can be sent ANY message whether it implements that function or not. So you can spell a function name wrong, but it doesnt necessarily mean you made a syntax error... maybe you mean to call a function of that OTHER name and you just want nothing to be done if the function is not implemented by your object.
That's what I would really like to see for Objective-C, is an IDE that once it notices you are sending a message to an object, it displays a list of methods and function definitions that the object is known to accept, and walks you through filling in the parameters.
I think you would waste less time by sticking with Xcode rather than looking for another IDE if you want to develop for the Mac (or iPhone).
Apple made a lot of effort to kill any competitor in that area to make sure any developer wanting to develop for the Mac platform use Xcode and only Xcode.
It might not be the best IDE but it does work well and it is the IDE developers at Apple are using. Somehow it does its job. The frameworks and the documentation are very well integrated.
I use TextMate a lot and also SubEthaEdit but they are not full IDE as you’ve described above.
Best Regards.
Check out JetBrains' new IDE called "App Code". It's still in the Early Access Program, but even with the Early Access bugs it is hands-down better than xcode 4. I've been using it for commercial iPhone and iPad development.
http://www.jetbrains.com/objc/
I would like to second Troy's answer and note that JetBrains has AppCode in early access, so you can try it for free. It has the familiar UI of their other products, and yes, it supports vi! So far it has been very good. I have run into a few issues, and a few vi-isms that don't work quite right, but it is still better than suffering with Xcode. I do text editing with syntax completion in AppCode, but switch back to XCode to get into the GUI builder which is actually quite good in Xcode.
If you are an old vi-guy like myself, it is invaluable.
The short answer is: No. There are thousands of IDEs but Xcode is the only one which you seriously can name IDE. I suggest you have a look at the tries of GNUStep (in form of Projectcenter, Gorm) and then you can imagine the state of affairs.
I believe KDevelop is the only full IDE that supports Obj-C, but I'm not even sure how fully it supports it, having never used it myself. Worth a shot, maybe.
There are a few programmers text editors that support Objective-C, but I like Editra, mainly because I also write Python on Windows\Nix and it has great features. Editra runs well on all platforms and has a nice plug-in that supports Mercurial, GIT, and Subversion if you need them. Another nice thing, its written in Python. Editra Home
Found another, though it sounds less than ideal:
ActiveDeveloper - doesn't appear to have active support (last update was in 2006). Mac only.
KDevelop sounds like it only supports Objective-C syntax and only through its C support. I'm going to check it out anyway.
Textmate has a couple screencasts for Objective-C (here and here). It is Mac only, but otherwise looks pretty good. It is hard to tell from the screencast how strong the integrated support is as it seems to just have a lot of scripts to handle the code. Also, I can't tell if it does true code completion or just expansion for snippets.
So it doesn't look like there is anything out there that hits everything. I'll probably do most of my development on Mac, so I'm thinking I'll try out TextMate with XCode to see if it is any better than straight XCode. I'll take a quick look at KDevelop.
Thanks.