# Coding IDE's



## djslum (Jan 4, 2009)

So yeah, besides having PhPed and Adobe Creative Suite 4 (yes I bought the damn thing, you should too! Support the work that went into it.) I was wondering what other IDE's there are out there that I can do.

IDE's that I'm looking for would be for:

Python
PHP
C, C++, C#
Javascript
ASP.NET C#, VB
XHTML, CSS, and AJAX

blah blah blah... You know.
If you got one you use, and like, share your info. :]


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't know why, but I read the title as "cooling IDEs" and thought hard drives.

Imagine my surprise when I opened it.


----------



## djslum (Jan 4, 2009)

Attorney At Lawl said:


> I don't know why, but I read the title as "cooling IDEs" and thought hard drives.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I opened it.



haha, very similar. But why would you have a cooling for your HDD's? I have only seen that kind of a mod on Biomech 550. (probably one of the sickest mods around in my opinion). Almost every hard drive gets by on just air cooling xD

haha, yeah I use dreamweaver to cool my hard drive xDDD


----------



## jcfiala (Jan 4, 2009)

No listing of Eclipse?  I'm pretty surprised.

Eclipse is my major one, although I use Komodo in some cases.


----------



## djslum (Jan 4, 2009)

oh yeah xD I forgot about that program, we use that in robotics, it's kickass. I love how it makes flowcharts generated in HTML to show you how your programing works. Great program, I think there is a freeware version of it called luna or something...


----------



## Pi (Jan 4, 2009)

I'd walk over a thousand miles of integrated this and visual that for a command line and a decent editor.


----------



## Oskenso (Jan 5, 2009)

MSVS, Eclipse, and notepad++ :3 (That's actually in backwards order o.o)


----------



## djslum (Jan 6, 2009)

Oskenso said:


> MSVS, Eclipse, and notepad++ :3 (That's actually in backwards order o.o)


coool :]


----------



## djslum (Jan 6, 2009)

Pi said:


> I'd walk over a thousand miles of integrated this and visual that for a command line and a decent editor.


it's a lot harder to debug in a command line though. :\


----------



## Runefox (Jan 6, 2009)

Notepad/Gedit/Kwrite/Nano or UltraEdit32. But they're not exactly IDE's, mostly for web development.


----------



## yell0w_f0x (Jan 6, 2009)

I usually use UltraEdit32 (not an IDE) coz it automatically changes the color for the tags and functions and labels and stuff depending on what type of file you're doing.. Usually use it for C and all its variants and HTML.. 

But i like to use dreamweaver for web-based stuff.. and for java, i use jdk..

i has lua5.1 but has no idea how to use it.. *hinting for some help with Lua programming* X3


----------



## verix (Jan 7, 2009)

djslum said:


> it's a lot harder to debug in a command line though. :\


http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~benjasik/gdb/gdbtut.html


----------



## net-cat (Jan 7, 2009)

Notepad++ when I'm stuck on Windows. (Which is, incidentally, my favorite editor.)
GVIM on UNIX with X. (Not especially happy with it, but it works...)
nano on UNIX without X. (I generally try to avoid this.)


----------



## CyberFoxx (Jan 7, 2009)

Bah, who needs an editor?

```
$ echo '#! /bin/bash' > script.sh
$ echo 'echo "Hello World!"' >> script.sh
$ chmod u+x script.sh
$ ./script.sh
Hello World!
$
```
I kid, I kid. I don't code that much, but I do normally use nano.


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 7, 2009)

I program in multiple sessions of VI inside of a GNU Screen session.


----------



## verix (Jan 8, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> I program in multiple sessions of VI inside of a GNU Screen session.



this is the only way to roll


----------



## Runefox (Jan 8, 2009)

Never liked Vi/Vim. Unintuitive.  Sure it's powerful, but if I'm just going in to make a change, I'm not going to appreciate the features as much as the fast access style of nano (much in the same vein as the old EDIT.COM).


----------



## Moka (Jan 11, 2009)

When I'm on a Mac:
TextMate for most work.
XCode when there's compiling involved.

When I'm on a Unix environment:
Usually gVim. Though, I've heard some good things about Kate.

When I'm on Windows:
I install Cygwin and use gVim.


----------



## verix (Jan 12, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Never liked Vi/Vim. Unintuitive.  Sure it's powerful, but if I'm just going in to make a change, I'm not going to appreciate the features as much as the fast access style of nano (much in the same vein as the old EDIT.COM).


Eh, once you get past the learning curve of navigation, vim is extremely addictive. I use it for everything-- from editing config files to multi-file-spanning programming projects. It's pretty much changed my life in the realm of editors.


----------



## Pi (Jan 12, 2009)

verix said:


> this is the only way to roll



Unless you're writing Lisp, Erlang, or Haskell. Maybe SML/NJ. In that case, Emacs ftw.


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 12, 2009)

Pi said:


> Unless you're writing Lisp, Erlang, or Haskell. Maybe SML/NJ. In that case, Emacs ftw.



Hehe, Emacs vs VI, the age old debate.  

To be honest, I don't know the emacs commands.  I came across VI first, and so far it's been on every Unix box I've ever come across, so it's treated me well.  VI was just love at first sight for me, and I still have so much more to learn about it...

But all of that aside, I really do need to give emacs a try.  I had a coworker that swore by it once.  What intrigued me the most is that it seemed to have really nice multi-document support, almost like gnu screen was built into it.


----------



## Pi (Jan 12, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> Hehe, Emacs vs VI, the age old debate.
> 
> To be honest, I don't know the emacs commands.  I came across VI first, and so far it's been on every Unix box I've ever come across, so it's treated me well.  VI was just love at first sight for me, and I still have so much more to learn about it...
> 
> But all of that aside, I really do need to give emacs a try.  I had a coworker that swore by it once.  What intrigued me the most is that it seemed to have really nice multi-document support, almost like gnu screen was built into it.



Emacs is really nice for editing documents written in those four languages I previously mentioned.

Plus, it's the only editor available on the Lisp Machine. Practically part of it's operating system.

(ps, it's 'vi', lowercase.)


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 12, 2009)

Pi said:


> (ps, it's 'vi', lowercase.)



(Forgive me if this is getting too tangential.)

I've actually wondered if there's a preferred writing of 'vi'.  I've seen it used as VI, Vi, and vi.  

Yes, I do see 'vi' more oftenly, but I always figured it was because the program itself is always called 'vi' on a Unix box, due to the tradition of program names being lower case.  I know it's a shorthand for visual, and not an acronym, but I didn't think it mattered.  I liked the roman numeral look of "VI," and had seen it written that way before.   

But your comment made me look into matters more thoroughly... All of the *bsd documentations I looked into and wikipedia all wrote it exclusively as 'vi.'  At the same time,  I couldn't find one credible source that calls it 'VI' or "Vi."  So you're right, and I now feel sheepish.  =/


----------



## mrredfox (Jan 12, 2009)

i use dreamweaver for php, lazerus (BEH school computers) and turbo delphi for pascal and XCode for cocoa.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 13, 2009)

djslum said:


> IDE's that I'm looking for would be for:
> 
> Python
> PHP
> ...


vim

the other acceptable answer is emacs

both run *anywhere* -- terminal or gui, linux or windows or os x or any other unix flavor -- with pretty much the same configuration and keybindings and do far more than the dozens of other editors I've seen



Pi said:


> I'd walk over a thousand miles of integrated this and visual that for a command line and a decent editor.


preach it brotha



yell0w_f0x said:


> I usually use UltraEdit32 (not an IDE) coz it automatically changes the color for the tags and functions and labels and stuff depending on what type of file you're doing..


this isn't really a feature.  an editor without syntax highlighting is useless.



net-cat said:


> Notepad++ when I'm stuck on Windows. (Which is, incidentally, my favorite editor.)
> GVIM on UNIX with X. (Not especially happy with it, but it works...)
> nano on UNIX without X. (I generally try to avoid this.)


why notepad++ over windows gvim?
and why not terminal vim?



Runefox said:


> Never liked Vi/Vim. Unintuitive.  Sure it's powerful, but if I'm just going in to make a change, I'm not going to appreciate the features as much as the fast access style of nano (much in the same vein as the old EDIT.COM).


what

there's nothing intuitive about text editing, except that the arrow keys probably move the blinky thing and somewhere along the line you press letters to make the same letters appear on the screen.  christ, nano has an omnipresent little help panel at the bottom because nobody's expected to remember any of _its_ incantations either

but why would you want to switch mental gears depending on "how much" you're going to edit a file

and what are you changing, anyway?
replacing a word?  faster in vim
commenting out several lines?  faster in vim
looking through several instances of a word?  faster in vim
adding an indented block?  faster in vim

I guess if you're only typing two characters right at the start of the file then nano is quicker, but I don't see how this is really a common use case for a text editor for someone who even knows vim exists.



Moka said:


> When I'm on Windows:
> I install Cygwin and use gVim.


you don't need cygwin to run gvim, unless you mean you install it for the other shell tools


----------



## Pi (Jan 13, 2009)

Eevee said:


> there's nothing intuitive about text editing



when most people say that vi/vim is unintuitive it's because they can't seem to wrap their minds around the modes.

i kind of grew up with edlin, so i started out familiar with the difference between insert and command mode.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 14, 2009)

Pi said:


> when most people say that vi/vim is unintuitive it's because they can't seem to wrap their minds around the modes.


I know; my point is that it's a bit silly to complain that a fully-featured (one of the _most_ fully-featured) text editor doesn't act exactly like a single-line text input control on start and promptly abandon it.  Normal vs Insert is not hard to grok, and the vim documentation is about the best I've ever read.  If you actually need a text editor, it is going to be worth the minor learning curve.  If you're really too lazy even for that, there's still evim and Cream.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 14, 2009)

If you have to _*read documentation*_ and _*go through a tutorial*_ for a _*text editor*_ (as in, not a word processor), then something, somewhere along the line, has failed.

Miserably.

Sorry.

And may I also point out that, like I said, that right there is pretty much the exact definition of unintuitive (or for people who are used to a single mode of operation, outright counterintuitive). If you can't pick it up and at least walk with it, that's not very intuitive, and one of the major complaints that you hear about vi/vim _anywhere_ is that it's difficult for beginners. So that would be correct. Compare it to nano or EDIT.COM or Notepad or Gedit or Kwrite or whatever, and it's much simpler to move the cursor, start typing, and save the file for anyone to do than with vi/vim.

Personally, I don't like bells and whistles, command prompts, and other miscellaneous crap to be built into my text editors. I like basic - I don't give two shits about being able to run scripts or anything silly like that on a text file, and I'm pretty sure most people out there who have no use for a text editor beyond editing the odd config file will much care for it, either.

Open file, find text to modify / jump to line, perform edit, save, close. Don't care for anything else. Then again, I don't code for a living. I code and hack PHP scripts and other such things, but that's secondary to my job and I'm not going to lose sleep over it being arguably less productive because I use one editor over another. That's just silly e-penis talk.

Remember, kids, when using vi, typing ZZ or :wq will save and quit! =D :q! quits without saving. Don't forget it! ... Like, seriously.

Look, I'm not trying to shit all over it, even though that's pretty much what I just did - I'm just trying to say that it's pretty understandable that this is like a Texan trying to speak Russian with no previous knowledge of it. It's basically a shell, which is great, but it's just not intuitive. If it works for you, great - But don't try and drag others down because you can't understand why those controls are exactly the opposite of what someone would think to try and work with and thus makes it unusable for the uninitiated. I find it to be slow and clunky because of that interface - That's just not my preference. *shrugs*


----------



## Moka (Jan 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> If you have to _*read documentation*_ and _*go through a tutorial*_ for a _*text editor*_ (as in, not a word processor), then something, somewhere along the line, has failed.



Welcome to Unix. 

Seriously though, this is because vi was designed back when a teletype was a common input method.

Very fast, very efficient. Hard to learn.

For most people stuck in a terminal, nano is fine. But if you spend all day in that terminal window, the learning curve is worth it.



Runefox said:


> Personally, I don't like bells and whistles, command prompts, and other miscellaneous crap to be built into my text editors. I like basic - I don't give two shits about being able to run scripts or anything silly like that on a text file, and I'm pretty sure most people out there who have no use for a text editor beyond editing the odd config file will much care for it, either.



You'll love ed then! After all, ed is the standard text editor.

*ducks*


----------



## Runefox (Jan 14, 2009)

Moka said:


> You'll love ed then! After all, ed is the standard text editor



Ouch. Well, I'm pretty glad that teletype isn't the standard anymore.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> If you have to _*read documentation*_ and _*go through a tutorial*_ for a _*text editor*_ (as in, not a word processor), then something, somewhere along the line, has failed.


_Why?_  You say this as though a text editor should be some simple bland thing akin to Notepad, but I use vim more than any other tool, possibly second only to gnome-terminal itself.  If you don't need to do heavy text editing, you don't need vim.  If you need vim, then "wah I have to spend three minutes reading this overview" is a sad excuse.

What do you propose for a terminal editor, anyway?  Have a little ticker of every command scroll across the bottom?

And, again, there are easy mode and Cream if you're really that lazy.



Runefox said:


> If you can't pick it up and at least walk with it, that's not very intuitive, and one of the major complaints that you hear about vi/vim _anywhere_ is that it's difficult for beginners.


Strangely enough, I've never heard this from an actual beginner.  I've heard this from enough people who haven't _used_ Vim and think it sounds daunting, but I've never seen anyone pick it up and continue to complain that it's hard.  "Insert puts you in Insert mode" and ":wq when you're done" are easy to remember and enough to get you up to the level of a giant textbox, and everything after that is lots and lots of icing.



Runefox said:


> Personally, I don't like bells and whistles, command prompts, and other miscellaneous crap to be built into my text editors. I like basic - I don't give two shits about being able to run scripts or anything silly like that on a text file


Cool, good for you.  _I_ like to get work done.



Runefox said:


> and I'm pretty sure most people out there who have no use for a text editor beyond editing the odd config file will much care for it, either.


Those people should not be using vim, any more than they should be editing config files with Word or Eclipse.



Runefox said:


> unusable for the uninitiated.


It is trivial to go from being uninitiated to initiated, _especially_ if all you do is add text and quit.

And again hurp durp easy mode and cream


----------



## net-cat (Jan 14, 2009)

Eevee said:


> why notepad++ over windows gvim?
> and why not terminal vim?


(a) Because gVim 7.1 for Windows had some problems with being retarded. 7.2 seems to have resolved that, though.
(b) Because your average UNIX administrator doesn't know the difference between vi and vim. "Durrr it comes with vi that's good enough right?"


----------



## jayhusky (Jan 14, 2009)

Notepad
Notepad ++
Dreamweaver


----------



## verix (Jan 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> If you have to _*read documentation*_ and _*go through a tutorial*_ for a _*text editor*_ (as in, not a word processor), then something, somewhere along the line, has failed.
> 
> Miserably.
> 
> Sorry.


nope


----------



## Pi (Jan 14, 2009)

verix said:


> nope



whining about needing to learn in order to do something complicated itt


----------



## Runefox (Jan 14, 2009)

Pi said:


> whining about needing to learn in order to do something complicated itt



What's complicated?


----------



## Moka (Jan 14, 2009)

Eevee said:


> Those people should not be using vim, any more than they should be editing config files with Word or Eclipse.



To be fair, nobody should _ever_ be editing config files with Word. That's just torture.


----------

