Under linux : gedit, with a terminal console.
I love gedit, it is simple and beautiful.

BCS wrote:
> I uses a text editor (edit++) and the command prompt.

Since no one has mentioned it yet, I primarily use emacs + dsss. With C-x | bound to the "compile" command and C-x ` bound to "next-error" it's pretty sweet I think.

I've got my eye on the Editra and Peppy projects which both aim to be the Python equivalents of Emacs for the 21st century (in slightly different ways).

--bb

Code::Blocks for something more complex and Kate for single-file programs.

	XEmacs + SCons on both Linux and Windows. I have yet to find an
editor with the same advanced features as (X)Emacs (or vim, but
(X)Emacs has a much easier learning curve).

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeberger@free.fr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+

Chalk another vote up for vim + command line.  My projects are small enough that I just compile them with dmd directly, but if I needed it, I probably would use dsss.

If only vim had intellisense, I would not even ever consider using another editor ever again.

-Steve

I use Mmrnmhrm. But I want to check out Descent 0.5 (which I haven't already because I've been busy), which introduces many of the features Mmrnmhrm has (specially code completion), and others more, which could make it preferable.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Bruno Medeiros wrote:

> I use Mmrnmhrm. But I want to check out Descent 0.5 (which I haven't already because I've been busy), which introduces many of the features Mmrnmhrm has (specially code completion), and others more, which could make it preferable.
> 

I use emacs with d-mode.  I haven't tried Mmrnmhrm, but did try Descent.  My project was large enough to uncover bugs out of the box (recommended solution: disable features).  Reading the docs, I saw all features I was interested in (including code completion) had disclaimers about bugs.  I set it down to wait for the next release.

Jason House wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> I use Mmrnmhrm. But I want to check out Descent 0.5 (which I haven't
>> already because I've been busy), which introduces many of the features
>> Mmrnmhrm has (specially code completion), and others more, which could
>> make it preferable.
>>
> 
> I use emacs with d-mode.  I haven't tried Mmrnmhrm, but did try Descent.  My
> project was large enough to uncover bugs out of the box (recommended
> solution: disable features).  Reading the docs, I saw all features I was
> interested in (including code completion) had disclaimers about bugs.  I
> set it down to wait for the next release.

What kind of bugs? Soft bugs like incorrect or missing matches, or harder bugs like IDE/editor crashes, OutOfMemory, error messages, etc?

I tried Descent recently, but only on small code samples. I didn't try it in any large project, so I don't know how well it would stand up. For what I've seen, Descent code completion is now much more accurate than Mmrnmhrm's, but the overall IDE seems more unstable than before.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Bruno Medeiros wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> 
>>> I use Mmrnmhrm. But I want to check out Descent 0.5 (which I haven't already because I've been busy), which introduces many of the features Mmrnmhrm has (specially code completion), and others more, which could make it preferable.
>>>
>> 
>> I use emacs with d-mode.  I haven't tried Mmrnmhrm, but did try Descent. My project was large enough to uncover bugs out of the box (recommended solution: disable features).  Reading the docs, I saw all features I was interested in (including code completion) had disclaimers about bugs.  I set it down to wait for the next release.
> 
> What kind of bugs? Soft bugs like incorrect or missing matches, or harder bugs like IDE/editor crashes, OutOfMemory, error messages, etc?
> 
> I tried Descent recently, but only on small code samples. I didn't try it in any large project, so I don't know how well it would stand up. For what I've seen, Descent code completion is now much more accurate than Mmrnmhrm's, but the overall IDE seems more unstable than before.
> 

It's been quite a while, so I don't really remember.  I definitely hit bugs with syntax highlighting, and marking code with compilation errors.  I had a manageable bug with automatic code compilation.  That last one was also fixed rather quickly, but the other two reduced Descent to being about as helpful as any other text editor :(

Jason House escribió:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> Jason House wrote:
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use Mmrnmhrm. But I want to check out Descent 0.5 (which I haven't
>>>> already because I've been busy), which introduces many of the features
>>>> Mmrnmhrm has (specially code completion), and others more, which could
>>>> make it preferable.
>>>>
>>> I use emacs with d-mode.  I haven't tried Mmrnmhrm, but did try Descent. My project was large enough to uncover bugs out of the box (recommended
>>> solution: disable features).  Reading the docs, I saw all features I was
>>> interested in (including code completion) had disclaimers about bugs.  I
>>> set it down to wait for the next release.
>> What kind of bugs? Soft bugs like incorrect or missing matches, or
>> harder bugs like IDE/editor crashes, OutOfMemory, error messages, etc?
>>
>> I tried Descent recently, but only on small code samples. I didn't try
>> it in any large project, so I don't know how well it would stand up. For
>> what I've seen, Descent code completion is now much more accurate than
>> Mmrnmhrm's, but the overall IDE seems more unstable than before.
>>
> 
> It's been quite a while, so I don't really remember.  I definitely hit bugs
> with syntax highlighting, and marking code with compilation errors.  I had
> a manageable bug with automatic code compilation.  That last one was also
> fixed rather quickly, but the other two reduced Descent to being about as
> helpful as any other text editor :(

That already changed in trunk. Really, I applied the new approach I described in some other post, and evertyhing started working much accurately, smoothly, and without bugs (well, I also wrote a lot of unit tests which were missing before). It is much, much more stable now. We hope to release soon. :-)