On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:53:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 1:42 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:40:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2013 10:57 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> Stupid inexpressive language are easier to write tools for, this is the very
>>>> reason why java have such a great tooling.
>>>
>>> You run the risk of having a write-only language if the expressivity is in the
>>> tools rather than the language.
>>
>> Tools don't have to show you what is in the text file. That is the beauty of it.
>> IntelliJ for instance, don't show java source code as it is in the source.
>
> I.e. you've invented another language that has Java as its output so the user never sees Java because Java is not presentable to users.

What is presented to the user isn't a text format anymore.

On 05/12/2013 05:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:04:31 -0400
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 10, 2013 14:31:00 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> As they say in information theory: it is the stuff that stands out,
>>> that is different from the rest, that carries the most information.
>>> The stuff that's pretty much repeated every single time conveys
>>> very little information.
>>
>> This is an excellent way of looking at language design (and program
>> design for that matter).
>>
>
> Not to mention data compression ;)
>

A program is a compressed representation of its possible executions.

On 5/12/13 5:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:53:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:42 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:40:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2013 10:57 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> Stupid inexpressive language are easier to write tools for, this is
>>>>> the very
>>>>> reason why java have such a great tooling.
>>>>
>>>> You run the risk of having a write-only language if the expressivity
>>>> is in the
>>>> tools rather than the language.
>>>
>>> Tools don't have to show you what is in the text file. That is the
>>> beauty of it.
>>> IntelliJ for instance, don't show java source code as it is in the
>>> source.
>>
>> I.e. you've invented another language that has Java as its output so
>> the user never sees Java because Java is not presentable to users.
>
> What is presented to the user isn't a text format anymore.

Looks like text to me. http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/. Did I look at the wrong product?

Andrei

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 13:04:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Looks like text to me. http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/. Did I look at the wrong product?
>

Yes, it is text based, but you can do many manipulation you can't do with a regular text presentation.

This is text++

On 12 May 2013 14:14, deadalnix <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 13:04:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Looks like text to me. http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/**. Did I look at the wrong product?
>>
>>
> Yes, it is text based, but you can do many manipulation you can't do with a regular text presentation.
>
> This is text++
>

Looks like *shivers* ASP....

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 03:58:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> The nicest thing of all, IMO, about not strictly needing all that
> support software is that basic things like
> editing/navigating/opening/closing code is always and forever 100%
> unobstructed by things like startup delays and keyboard input lag which
> have no business existing on the rocket-engined supercomputers we now
> call "a PC".

I'm using a little known IDE for D known as Poseidon:
    http://www.dsource.org/projects/poseidon/wiki/Screenshots
it is very fast, loads very quickly, and the editor is very responsive. The keyword autocompletion is mostly broken in D2 but I can live without it. It is a bit sad that it has gone unmantained for more than a year.

These are the things that I cannot live without for my big D2 project:
    - Syntax highlighting.
    - Tree like structure for navigating all the many source files of my project.
    - Search in multiple files.
    - Debugging (breakpoints, step by step, go to line that crashed). It suprisingly still works in Poseidon.
    - Can go to file/line when double-clicking on compiler error.
    - Compile/run/debug just by hitting SHIFT-F5, and other keys.
    - No need for a makefile. It feeds all source files (hundreds) and libraries to dmd.

For smaller D projects I use Vim/makefiles though.

Again, I'm a bit sad that it has gone unmantained for so long, but it's totally usable still. This is the faster IDE that I've found.

--jm

On 05/11/2013 05:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I didn't say an IDE was bad for D, I only said that if you need an IDE
> to generate boilerplate for you, then there's something wrong with the
> language.
>
> IDE's have lots of other valuable uses.

Two points. One, the person I responded to (and quoted in my reply) said, "Yes, which is why I love D so much. All I need is a text editor and the compiler, and I can do everything."

Second, in the Q&A session of your talk, you said, "I'm sorely tempted to say that real men don't use IDEs..." The fixation on boilerplate as to why people "need" IDEs is just a symptom of the more general sentiment.

On 5/12/2013 9:42 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> Second, in the Q&A session of your talk, you said, "I'm sorely tempted to say
> that real men don't use IDEs..."

Yes, but I said that as a joke.


> The fixation on boilerplate as to why people
> "need" IDEs is just a symptom of the more general sentiment.

No, the sentiment was that an IDE was not the solution to a language's deficiencies.

On 5/12/2013 2:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:53:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:42 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 08:40:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2013 10:57 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> Stupid inexpressive language are easier to write tools for, this is the very
>>>>> reason why java have such a great tooling.
>>>>
>>>> You run the risk of having a write-only language if the expressivity is in the
>>>> tools rather than the language.
>>>
>>> Tools don't have to show you what is in the text file. That is the beauty of it.
>>> IntelliJ for instance, don't show java source code as it is in the source.
>>
>> I.e. you've invented another language that has Java as its output so the user
>> never sees Java because Java is not presentable to users.
>
> What is presented to the user isn't a text format anymore.

I think that is irrelevant to my point. A language doesn't have to be text based.

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 18:09:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I think that is irrelevant to my point. A language doesn't have to be text based.

Textual format have proven theur usefullness again and again. Programming languages, json, xml, even dark stuff like LLVM IR have a textual representation. This is easier to debug.

In that regard, if you consider IntelliJ, java has become a textual representation. It is important as the compiler would be much harder to create otherwize.