On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:56:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> So then recompile after you do a distribution upgrade.

Of course there's ways around it, but talk about an enormous hassle.

> I'll be sure to look, but one bad thing doesn't mean everything's bad

Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was there if you needed it.

> if you remember the days when you'd be listening to music but couldn't hear any sounds from sauerbraten

Actually, that's still the way things are on my system (there is the alsa stuff, but the OSS emulation actually works better. Get that.).... and over the years, I've come to see it as a feature!

See, I would keep one program running just to thwart random Flash crap from spewing noise. Now I use noscript, but still I've come to like locking the speakers with another program.

Am 14.09.2013 00:51, schrieb John Colvin:
> On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:09:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> Even on linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a
>> linux binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux
>> binaries always have some incompatibility).
>
> As others have mentioned, this is not how linux operates really. In my
> experience almost everyone either uses a package manager (almost
> everything) or builds from source (bleeding edge)
>
> Downloading executables from peoples websites is definitely a window
> mindset.

It does not work for commercial UNIX software.

Am 13.09.2013 23:35, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 9/13/2013 1:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in black-on-white
>> for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately, black on an almost
>> fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)
>
> I tend to agree. I think syntax highlighting looks better if it's a
> subtle color change, not a glaring one. Unfortunately, in text mode,
> color palette is very limited.
>

I use IDEs with syntax highlighting since MS-DOS days, with Borland product line.

For me it is the opposite case, I get lost without colors giving me
clues to what is what.

--
Paulo

> Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was there if you needed it.

I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to windows7.
Windows is better.

Am 14.09.2013 00:50, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:37:51AM +0200, Namespace wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:23:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
>>> "Namespace" <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D
>>>
>>> I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) issues
>>> with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be the
>>> ones who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"
>>
>> Next time I should ask who use which OS. ;)
>
> I started using Linux around 1996 or so. Never looked back since.
>
>
> T
>

I use a mix of Windows and whatever Linux distribution that works out of the box.

--
Paulo

On 9/13/2013 7:00 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2013 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>> And drawing, oh my. Long story short, coming from DOS or Windows to the
>>> glorious land of various buggy, incompatible vt100 emulators is such a
>>> shock.
>>
>> Yeah, I've thought about taking the tty/kbd code from ME and making a
>> phobos module out of it. So many annoying problems that can be abstracted
>> away.
>
> Is nurses not sufficient?  I've only used it for making roguelikes, but it
> made working with a text terminal quite easy.


Those cross platform libraries never work cross platform without far more pain than just rolling your own.

On 9/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/13/13 4:43 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 14 September 2013 00:39, Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme@jadamspam.pl> wrote:
>>> On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just out of interest.
>>>>
>>>> I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
>>>> this evening VisualD.
>>>
>>>
>>> Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.
>>
>> Excuse me, but /real/ programmers use Butterflies.
>
> For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/

I've used punch cards and paper tape. But I refused to use paddle switches.

Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> .... The features that an IDE has that
> vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing Windows
> programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the debugger. I even
> build from the command line rather than open the IDE.
>
> Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was worth
> it.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

You mean things like:

- Semantic refactoring
- WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
- code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
- graphical representation of code relationships
- UML design
- visual XML tooling
- background compilation showing where there are issues
- background static analysis while coding
- code completation with documentation popups
- integrate source code control with task management software to track code changes to project tasks
- map failed unit tests to code lines
- ...

--
Paulo

JEdit (seems I am the only one) and Visual D.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 06:56:10 Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> > .... The features that an IDE has that
> > vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing
> > Windows
> > programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the debugger. I
> > even build from the command line rather than open the IDE.
> > 
> > Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was worth it.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> You mean things like:
> 
> - Semantic refactoring
> - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
> - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived
> class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
> - graphical representation of code relationships
> - UML design
> - visual XML tooling
> - background compilation showing where there are issues
> - background static analysis while coding
> - code completation with documentation popups
> - integrate source code control with task management software to track
> code changes to project tasks
> - map failed unit tests to code lines
> - ...

I honestly find almost all of that to be useless or nearly so. The only one that I'd actually be much interested in would be better code navigation (particularly the ability to hop to the definition of a function). And having poor code editing capabilities would hamper me quite a bit. So, for me, vim wins hands down.

- Jonathan M Davis