On 02/09/13 14:12, Ramon wrote:
> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 04:00:37 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, the IDE should only be a wrapper around the core functionality
>> and never be so closely integrated that the core is unusable without
>> the IDE.  Personally, I just like using a configurable editor (e.g.
>> Geany, emacs and so on) which knows (or can be taught) how to do
>> various useful things that an IDE might offer.
>>
>> If you want an IDE then create one but make it an "add on" and don't
>> expect everyone to use it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Peter
>> PS I especially hate IDEs that try to force me to create "projects".
>> PPS I especially like IDEs that have built in terminal editors so that
>> you can do command line stuff without the need for a separate window.
>
> I perfectly agree. An IDE should be optional - but it should
> exist.

OK, but why are you putting the onus on Walter to create it.  He's looking after the core technology and probably has enough to do already.  Surely someone (such as you) who wants an IDE should be the person to create it.

>
> And btw: With IDE I don't necessarily mean a fully blown Eclipse
> like thing. A smart developer oriented editor (like Geany) with a
> reasonable interface to a *working* debugger is good enough.

I agree there.  I tried to use Eclipse way back when it first came out and it was already to complicated (and too Java centric) for my taste. If I recall correctly it was also one of those that insisted on "projects" and all source files in its own directory tree.

Peter
PS I too like GUIs for doing some things and if there isn't one available (that suits my way of working) I knock one up myself using a PyGTK wrapper around the command line interface (e.g. gquilt and gwsmhg for quilt and Mercurial respectively) and when it's working I make it public just in case it scratches someone else's itch.

On 02/09/13 14:24, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:21:08AM +0200, Ramon wrote:
> [...]
>> D's bias toward Windows doesn't help either.
> [...]
>
> I'm confused by this statement.

I think this may be a reference to parts of Phobos which are a bit Windowsish with Posix tacked on rather than Posix with special cases for Windows' lack of support for some features.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 21:27:56 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 20:47:56 UTC, Ludovit Lucenic wrote:
>> Somehow neither Adam D. Ruppe's web stuff nor vibe.d server were not able to target my intention to have latest D2 compiler support (Dec 2012/Jan 2013)
>
> Do you remember exactly what it was? I often skip every other dmd release so if it was blah is deprecated that's probably what it was.

Sorry, Adam, for not being maybe completely explicit on that
statement. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the exact problem with
the usage of your code.
But the feeling I recall (which still persists) is that your code
did not what I needed/wished to have, not that it would do things
wrong that it did.

My intention was not to criticize anything. I wanted to share the
impressions, enthusiasm, pains, obstacles and winnings I achieved
while I was doing my research. Let everybody create his/her own
opinion. And maybe someone gets inspired to move things further
at least in one of the areas I mentioned :-)

Ludovit

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 22:21:10 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> Ludovit Lucenic
>
> While one may discuss about IDE or cli, I feel that an IDE is at least an immensely helpful starting point.

I would add to it, that IDE could also solve some of the problems
discussed e.g. on the Panel talk in DConf. I mean the code
upgrade automation once the compiler comes in newer version. We
solved this (in the job mentioned) by having an IDE that did an
automatic upgrade on the project opened. I absolutely agree with
Walter that it seems weird to have a compiler which modifies the
code :-) But having an IDE that does this is pretty much
convenient. Not talking about the whole bunch of other minor 'D
UX' issues that could be managed easily with a little help of an
IDE.

> I agree that one should be able to do programming with no more than a simple editor, a compiler/linker, and a debugger (!). Newcomers, however, (and even many seasoned programmers) handily profit from an IDE (and I don't mean Eclipse which I count as a moloch that, to make things worse, is based on java).

I did not meant Eclipse is 'the way'. I said eclipse-like
debugging user experience is still something worth taking
inspiration from. Anyway I am persuaded having IDE written in D
fits the needs the best. Just look at all the relevant IDEs
around. Every and each of them is used primarily to target the
language the IDE is written in :-) MonoDevelop for Mono, Visual
Studio for .Net, Code::Blocks for C++, Eclipse for Java... Have
you noticed it ?


> Finally and possibly most importantly, basically not having fully working  debugger support is a very serious lack. I may be wrong (actually I hope to be wrong) but from what I know, this issue doesn't seem to be seen as having very high priority.

I got to admit this is the most surprising thing about the D I
came across. Well, let's not complain about it, let's do
something with it. I assume the GDB is cross-platform solution
for debugging that seems to be furthest. Therefore I chose
MonoDevelop to improve its debugging capabilities (at least I had
something to start with) and add the visualization needed by some
of us.
However, I don't think I can move things much forward on Windows
unless we have ready to use GDC/LDC executables (that one can
download and install easily on Win platform) which would by-pass
the DMD/GDB/Win problem then. Moreover, I don't like to code in
C#, when there's D around :-) but for the beginning...

> I'm more and more getting the impression that D could be a programmers dreams come true if only it were practically and productively useable. Sure, it's not D's fault. But in the end we need a fully working debugger, some good editor support (say, on a Scintilla/Scite level), preferably at least one cross platform non-java IDE (like Code:Blocks) and easy access to C libraries in order to actually and productively work with a language.

Could not express it better!

> D's bias toward Windows doesn't help either.

Absolutely disagree. My experience is quite the opposite. I mean,
you might be referring the VisualD stuff, but regarding the
debugging, it is not mature enough anyway.

> Looking at it from a marketing perspective, i.e. looking for what potential users (read: "the large crowd out there") would look for, I see that the creators of D have done an excellent job that, however reminds of a Porsche engine on a makeshift chassis.

I am idealist myself too, but got to admit: perfect analogy.

> Frankly, if we want D to attract developers and to get the position it undoubtedly deserves that will not be achieved so much by finetuning D or even phobos but by being able to offer a well-rounded and well useable package (and soon after good docs for what we have so far).
>
> A+ -R

The work with D has to bring joy, but sometimes it leads to
confusion. We're strong, we will come through, but have anyone
already see the tunnel ? Not speaking of the light :-)

Ludovit

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 23:22:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 22:21:10 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>> Finally and possibly most importantly, basically not having fully working  debugger support is a very serious lack.
>
> Maybe it is because I write 100% bug free code the first time every time ( :-) ) but I've found the gdb support, at least on Linux, to be really pretty good.

You don't mean it, do you ? :-D

> I compile with -gc -debug - the "pretend to be C" option is something I started doing years ago and might not be necessary anymore, but I've found it to be plenty good enough anyway.
>
>> D's bias toward Windows doesn't help either.
>
> If anything, I don't think D goes far enough in its Windows support. It works well there, sure, even the optlink things others complain about don't bother me, but there's a lot of stuff it could easily do and doesn't, at least not without grabbing additional downloads.
>
> On Linux, dmd works quite excellently, as do gdc and ldc.

I wish we could say the same for them running on Windows...

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 23:36:11 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 23:22:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 22:21:10 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>> Finally and possibly most importantly, basically not having fully working  debugger support is a very serious lack.
>>
>> Maybe it is because I write 100% bug free code the first time every time ( :-) ) but I've found the gdb support, at least on Linux, to be really pretty good.
>>
>> I compile with -gc -debug - the "pretend to be C" option is something I started doing years ago and might not be necessary anymore, but I've found it to be plenty good enough anyway.
>>
>>> D's bias toward Windows doesn't help either.
>>
>> If anything, I don't think D goes far enough in its Windows support. It works well there, sure, even the optlink things others complain about don't bother me, but there's a lot of stuff it could easily do and doesn't, at least not without grabbing additional downloads.
>>
>> On Linux, dmd works quite excellently, as do gdc and ldc.
>
> -gc? Hmmm ... I'll try that. Thanks for the tip ;)
>
> For the rest: Frankly, I'm not even sure, I should follow that kind of discussion (like in Manu's thread) anymore. I don't mean to offend someone but it strikes me as ... uhm ... brains not used at their full power ... when "there is no really properly and fully working IDE" (which is pretty close to a killer for many) gt thrown in - and seriously - discussed with stuff like "nenene, in Windows Visual Blah 2010 it worked and now Intellisense works only with handish settings, nenene".
> Even worse, while I'm still hoping for a promising statement by a heavy-weight like e.g. W. Bright along the line "Yep, we really, seriously need some working cross platform IDE, preferably an easy to install one" ... one seems quite happy to seriously adress nitty-bitties for Windows Whatever 2012 (c) (tm) $$$.
>
> Maybe perfection must be three, the catholic way, a triplet. Maybe we need another incarnation of Andrei A. (who brought great stuff to D) but this third guy bringing good useabilty to D.

A 'D usability roadmap' defined from within the community would
make things definitively easier and better to follow.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 23:22:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 22:21:10 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>> Finally and possibly most importantly, basically not having fully working  debugger support is a very serious lack.
>
> Maybe it is because I write 100% bug free code the first time every time ( :-) ) but I've found the gdb support, at least on Linux, to be really pretty good.
>
> I compile with -gc -debug - the "pretend to be C" option is something I started doing years ago and might not be necessary anymore, but I've found it to be plenty good enough anyway.
>
>> D's bias toward Windows doesn't help either.
>
> If anything, I don't think D goes far enough in its Windows support. It works well there, sure, even the optlink things others complain about don't bother me, but there's a lot of stuff it could easily do and doesn't, at least not without grabbing additional downloads.
>
> On Linux, dmd works quite excellently, as do gdc and ldc.

Adam,

Me and my colleague are working full time for a project with DMD 2.063: I'm on OSX, so it's a different story, but he is on linux (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit).

He is VERY interested in being able to use the debugger, first of all from command line (just to understand at first glance what is working and what not...).

I've read a lot of thread about debugging, mainly related to stack-trace or sigfault, but what we are rely missing is the ability to set a break (usually that's work, at least in OSX), AND being able to inspect locals.

I think we are not alone searching for such informations, so can you point me somewhere in the wiki, in the documentation, or similar, when there's a clear information about what version of gdb to use, what it is available as functionality and what not, and what compiler flags to use?

If there's not such a place, does it worth considering to open a page related to that?

- Paolo

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 21:27:56 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 20:47:56 UTC, Ludovit Lucenic wrote:
>> Somehow neither Adam D. Ruppe's web stuff nor vibe.d server were not able to target my intention to have latest D2 compiler support (Dec 2012/Jan 2013)
>
> Do you remember exactly what it was? I often skip every other dmd release so if it was blah is deprecated that's probably what it was.

Same question applies to vibe.d - I have been working on it quite intensively somewhere around Jan/Feb 2013 and am extremely surprised to hear any issues of that kind have existed. Most frustrating type of a problem is the one that never gets reported upstream.

On 2013-09-01 22:47, Ludovit Lucenic wrote:

>   1) only D1 version of majority of D code I could use, phobos vs. tango
> incompatibility, ... (valid for January 2013)

Tango for D2 is available here

https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2

It can be used side-by-side with Phobos without any problems. I use it like that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 07:22:31 UTC, Ludovit Lucenic wrote:
> But the feeling I recall (which still persists) is that your code did not what I needed/wished to have, not that it would do things wrong that it did.

Yeah, I often write just what I need and then leave it at that.

But if you ever have feature requests, I might be able to add it if I'm not too busy with other stuff/it isn't too hard for me to slap together.