www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - IDE for D

reply "tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> writes:
Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/ 
Jan 27 2005
next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef_member pathlink.com> writes:
I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net framework. It is
so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...
Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/ 

Jan 27 2005
parent reply "tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> writes:
I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as MFC.
For example,
1. Speedy Development
2. Use on Linux with Mono
3. Efficient .NET Framework Debugger
etc.

But framework has many demerit.
1. Slow(Not native code)
2. Need .NET Framework
etc.

I think abount these problem and decided to use .NET Framework.

"bobef" <bobef_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:ctbj38$3eh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net framework. 
It is
 so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

 In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...
Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/


Jan 27 2005
parent reply zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:
tomo wrote:
 I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as 
 MFC.
 For example,
 1. Speedy Development
 2. Use on Linux with Mono
 3. Efficient .NET Framework Debugger
 etc.
 
 But framework has many demerit.
 1. Slow(Not native code)
 2. Need .NET Framework
 etc.
 
 I think abount these problem and decided to use .NET Framework.
 
 "bobef" <bobef_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:ctbj38$3eh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net 
 framework. It is
 so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

 In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...

 Hi, I'm tomo.
 I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
 Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
 language.
 If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very 
 much
 that you do so.

 tomo
 http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/



You might find this article insightful: How Microsoft Lost the API War By Joel Spolsky http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Jan 27 2005
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
In article <ctch78$14c6$1 digitaldaemon.com>, zwang says...
tomo wrote:
 I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as 


You might find this article insightful:
How Microsoft Lost the API War
By Joel Spolsky
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Interesting article. He included a big plug for languages with garbage collection: "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it. "Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer productivity." jcc7
Jan 28 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:ctdom2$2u7n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Interesting article. He included a big plug for languages with garbage
 collection:

 "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between
 procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object

 programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I

 that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong.

 oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity
 booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've

 in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you
 automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it

 be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of
 scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a

 memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're

 with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be

 more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to

 manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive

 language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the
 automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

He's right.
 "Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my
 experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where

 automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission.

You can't pushstart an auto car! You can't "rock" an auto car back and forth to get out of a rut. An auto car doesn't give the control needed in very slippery conditions. And an auto car just doesn't provide that visceral thrill that a stick will with a high performance engine.
Jan 30 2005
prev sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi, I'm tomo.
 I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
 Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
 language.
 If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
 that you do so.

 tomo
 http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/

So far, it's very basic, but it looks like there's some stuff stubbed out. I don't seem to be able to compile anything correctly; I set the path to "c:\dmd\bin\dmd.exe" and it found the compiler, but it just says "error compiling main.d." PLEASE make this a good IDE! :) We don't have any very good IDEs yet, and it'd be great to have one!
Jan 28 2005