Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/15/10:35:22
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 1997, Daniel P Hudson wrote:
>> Here is a possible idea, to help users integrate other langauges into
>> your IDE though. Some form of scripting langauge for a description
>> file should be allowed which would allow the user to specify file
>> extensions, compiler/interpreter, and syntax form for highlighting.
>> Users could then have an ide for various products both from and not
>> from DJGPP. The less technically inclined woudl have to use others
>> files, but still, that would be a nice idea, although, no simple task,
>IMHO, this will make RHIDE another (albeit different) Emacs, in which
>case you might go for Emacs right now, since it already has that
I've used EMACS and while its nice, its too damn big, and IMHO, not
worth the storage space required.
>Also, experience shows that a tool which is too powerful and flexible
>(such as Emacs) tends to spook newbies which then remember their trauma
>long after they know enough to use that tool. Striking a balance
You want to spook newbies, make em use vi. ;-)
Your right, well sort of. I mean the feature was meant to be seperate,
not actually part of RHIDE. Sort of a seperate editor to set up RHIDE
in which ou could warn them of this. I just thought it might make using
it as a multi-land IDE easier once it was done. So far he has GCC, G++,
and GPC, but what about Perl, gawk, sed, M-2, g77, etc.? They will
eventually be ported if they aren't akready. sed, gawk, and perl I
know are already.
>features and complexity you pay for having them is a very delicate and
>difficult task, and an IDE which is meant to be used by novices should
>IMHO restrain from adding too much features.
Agreed, of course, he could build support in for it and then distribute
the set-up tools seperately and not mention them in the docs. that way
you sort of have to talk to others to figure out what you need and
whether it is for you or not.
- Raw text -