|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > May 2007 > Help choosing an IDE
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Help choosing an IDE
|
|
| jamiil 2007-05-07, 1:13 am |
| Look folks, I don't want to start a argument here, so please, lets
keep it nice and easy, k?
Here is my problem, I am not champion programmer and I like keeping my
hands clean when I work, so I am looking for a IDE that will be easy
to use and free [ i.e. Dev-Cpp ]. I tried Anjuta, but for some reason
the documentation is a bit off, to say the least, and I could not
compile and run a simple 'hello' program. I like KDevelop, but it is
not a FSF. What I'd like is an IDE that only requires me to click on
run and 'it' will just do the magic. No more make.this, or
Makefile.that, none of that stuff. Here is the twist, I would like
this IDE to be free!!
Is there such a thing in Linux? there must be at least one!!
Thanks folks
| |
| John Hasler 2007-05-07, 1:12 pm |
| jamiil writes:
> I like KDevelop, but it is not a FSF.
What is an FSF?
--
John Hasler
| |
| Tim Johnson 2007-05-07, 7:14 pm |
| jamiil wrote:
> Look folks, I don't want to start a argument here, so please, lets
> keep it nice and easy, k?
> Here is my problem, I am not champion programmer and I like keeping my
> hands clean when I work, so I am looking for a IDE that will be easy
> to use and free [ i.e. Dev-Cpp ]. I tried Anjuta, but for some reason
> the documentation is a bit off, to say the least, and I could not
> compile and run a simple 'hello' program. I like KDevelop, but it is
> not a FSF. What I'd like is an IDE that only requires me to click on
> run and 'it' will just do the magic. No more make.this, or
> Makefile.that, none of that stuff. Here is the twist, I would like
> this IDE to be free!!
>
> Is there such a thing in Linux? there must be at least one!!
What is/are your target language(s)?
By 'FSF' do you mean Free Software Foundation?
tim (vim,emacs,xemacs => C/C++,python,rebol,javascript)
| |
| jamiil 2007-05-07, 7:14 pm |
| On May 7, 7:19 am, Tim Johnson <t...@johnsons-web.com> wrote:
> jamiil wrote:
>
>
> What is/are your target language(s)?
> By 'FSF' do you mean Free Software Foundation?
> tim (vim,emacs,xemacs => C/C++,python,rebol,javascript)
Oops sorry, I did not disclosed a vital piece of information, yes! C/C+
+.
Some times I forget the there world actually use other programing
languages. Sorry again, but there you have it now, it is for C/C++
programming language.
Thanks!
| |
| jamiil 2007-05-07, 7:14 pm |
| On May 7, 8:52 am, John Hasler <jhas...@debian.org> wrote:
> jamiil writes:
>
> What is an FSF?
> --
> John Hasler
It stands for Free Software Foundation.
Have a good one!
| |
| John Hasler 2007-05-07, 7:14 pm |
| jamiil writes:
> I like KDevelop, but it is not a FSF.
I wrote:
> What is an FSF?
jamiil writes:
> It stands for Free Software Foundation.
Are you trying to say that you object to Kdevelop because the copyright is
not owned by the FSF? If so why don't you object to the Linux kernel or
The X Window System or to Iceweasel, all of which you use to post here?
--
John Hasler
| |
| jamiil 2007-05-07, 7:14 pm |
| On May 6, 10:45 pm, jamiil <jalqa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look folks, I don't want to start a argument here, so please, lets
> keep it nice and easy, k?
> Here is my problem, I am not champion programmer and I like keeping my
> hands clean when I work, so I am looking for a IDE that will be easy
> to use and free [ i.e. Dev-Cpp ]. I tried Anjuta, but for some reason
> the documentation is a bit off, to say the least, and I could not
> compile and run a simple 'hello' program. I like KDevelop, but it is
> not a FSF. What I'd like is an IDE that only requires me to click on
> run and 'it' will just do the magic. No more make.this, or
> Makefile.that, none of that stuff. Here is the twist, I would like
> this IDE to be free!!
>
> Is there such a thing in Linux? there must be at least one!!
>
> Thanks folks
I am sorry folks, I have just realize that the GUI tool kit I will be
using is GTK/GTKmm.
Thanks
| |
| Tim Johnson 2007-05-08, 1:13 am |
| jamiil wrote:
> On May 7, 8:52 am, John Hasler <jhas...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> It stands for Free Software Foundation.
> Have a good one!
>
Howdy:
If you want to use a FSF IDE - then it will be
Emacs
------
You haven't told me what you want to program in.
If you use
Emacs
------
Then you will have to learn to program in both
the language that you choice *and* elisp - to
make emacs do what you *really* want it to do.
My recommendations - if you are a beginning coder:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Use kdevelop if you're using any of the languages supported
by kdevelop.
------------------------------------------------------------
FYI:
I *am* a dedicated FSF user and an emacs user, but to get
started on a *pure* FSF path, you are either brilliant,
in which case we might want to hire you or you're cruz'in for
a bruz'in, in which case - at this distance - there ain't much
I kin do 4 u.
tim
| |
| Tim Johnson 2007-05-08, 1:13 am |
| jamiil wrote:
> On May 6, 10:45 pm, jamiil <jalqa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am sorry folks, I have just realize that the GUI tool kit I will be
> using is GTK/GTKmm.
Hi Jamil:
I missed this reply prior to my previous reply to your post.
FSF is a wonderful principle, but do yourself a favor and try
something out of the box like kdevelop. I think it will do what
you want it do and will make it easier for you to concentrate on the
code.
If you really support the FSF, don't feel bad about this, just send
them some money - any amount will do and you can then feel good about
supporting them. Check out the gdb book, by buying that, you can
provide the support and get a great book for your library.
As you become more proficient, then try out emacs...
cheers and best of luck!
tim
| |
| Linonut 2007-05-13, 1:13 pm |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, jamiil belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Here is my problem, I am not champion programmer and I like keeping my
> hands clean when I work, so I am looking for a IDE that will be easy
> to use and free [ i.e. Dev-Cpp ]. I tried Anjuta, but for some reason
> the documentation is a bit off, to say the least, and I could not
> compile and run a simple 'hello' program.
Which version of Anjuta? Version 2 is a pretty big change from version
1, as I understand it.
> I like KDevelop, but it is not a FSF.
> What I'd like is an IDE that only requires me to click on
> run and 'it' will just do the magic.
Even Visual Studio (Microsoft) won't do that. You still have to figure
out the environment and understand what it is doing.
> No more make.this, or
> Makefile.that, none of that stuff. Here is the twist, I would like
> this IDE to be free!!
Actually, you are better off learning the rudiments of makefiles and
autoconf, automake, and the rest of the GNU autotools. Both KDevelop
and Anjuta use them under the hood.
--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
| |
| Marty Fried 2007-05-13, 1:13 pm |
| Somewhere around Sunday 13 May 2007 06:33 am, while hiding out in
alt.os.linux.debian, Linonut blurted out:
>
> Even Visual Studio (Microsoft) won't do that. You still have to
> figure out the environment and understand what it is doing.
>
And often, it does things that are not very easy to understand or figure
out. I really hate the fact that they got rid of the makefile model
for the projects. Makes it a lot harder to work with, especially if
you do cross-platform development like I do. I no longer use it except
from the command line to compile for Windows. I use Vim to edit, run
make, along with ctags. I'm getting to like it better, except for the
command completion (that doesn't always work anyway).
>
> Actually, you are better off learning the rudiments of makefiles and
> autoconf, automake, and the rest of the GNU autotools. Both KDevelop
> and Anjuta use them under the hood.
>
Yes, I second that. Makefiles aren't really that hard with GNU. For my
team, we simply add a sourcefile with an editor, then run "make depend"
to automatically add the dependencies, then "make" to build the file.
The makefile also has a ctags argument to build that. And we can use
the same makefile for Windows, linux, and AIX.
-- Marty Fried
public.forums @ gmail . com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." Â_ - Groucho Marx
| |
| jamiil 2007-05-15, 7:13 am |
| On May 13, 1:02 pm, Marty Fried <see.be...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Somewhere around Sunday 13 May 2007 06:33 am, while hiding out in
> alt.os.linux.debian, Linonut blurted out:
>
>
> And often, it does things that are not very easy to understand or figure
> out. I really hate the fact that they got rid of the makefile model
> for the projects. Makes it a lot harder to work with, especially if
> you do cross-platform development like I do. I no longer use it except
> from the command line to compile for Windows. I use Vim to edit, run
> make, along with ctags. I'm getting to like it better, except for the
> command completion (that doesn't always work anyway).
>
>
>
> Yes, I second that. Makefiles aren't really that hard with GNU. For my
> team, we simply add a sourcefile with an editor, then run "make depend"
> to automatically add the dependencies, then "make" to build the file.
> The makefile also has a ctags argument to build that. And we can use
> the same makefile for Windows, linux, and AIX.
>
> -- Marty Fried
> public.forums @ gmail . com
> "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
> well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
Yes, it is true, at the end of the day writing our own 'Makefile'
makes it much easier and better for us. Writing our own 'Makefile'
gives us the control and certainty, and thus peace of mind that we
need when developing, than having to work with the methodology and/or
attitude that some other programmers have laid out for us to work
with, which is what the industry calls "standards". However, the
portability and easiness that Auto-tools gives to the programmer is
unparalleled. I would say that learning the Auto-tools is a MUST for
any programmer who wants to be taken seriously in this industry.
I would like to conclude this discussion by thanking everybody for
their invaluable contribution; although I will keep writing my own
Makefile.?? for obvious reasons, I will have Kdevelop as a support
tool and I will, from time to time, check on Anjuta's development.
| |
| Linonut 2007-05-16, 1:14 am |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, jamiil belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Yes, it is true, at the end of the day writing our own 'Makefile'
> makes it much easier and better for us. Writing our own 'Makefile'
> gives us the control and certainty, and thus peace of mind that we
> need when developing, than having to work with the methodology and/or
> attitude that some other programmers have laid out for us to work
> with, which is what the industry calls "standards". However, the
> portability and easiness that Auto-tools gives to the programmer is
> unparalleled. I would say that learning the Auto-tools is a MUST for
> any programmer who wants to be taken seriously in this industry.
Some people really like another system called "cmake".
I don't see much advantage in it myself, but it does support Linux and
Windows development.
> I would like to conclude this discussion by thanking everybody for
> their invaluable contribution; although I will keep writing my own
> Makefile.?? for obvious reasons, I will have Kdevelop as a support
> tool and I will, from time to time, check on Anjuta's development.
Free Software is like the weather in Boston. If you don't like it, wait
a few minutes.
--
I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
|
|
|
|
|