Ruby on Rails IDE
ZRiddick
IDE. Most of what I have pulled up dates to 2008. Also the Eclipse
IDE has trouble finding the JRE running on Windows 7 64 bit. Very
surprised that Eclipse is not more concerned with having there
platform work better with JRE since it is so dependent upon it. I
dropped it like a hot potato for this reason. I am going to give the
netbeans a go but I would like a lot more input on the matter from
seasoned RoR developers. If I am missing something please let me know.
I am really interested in switching to Ruby for developing enterprise
apps. Otherwise I will be forced to go with visual studio wfc.
Jerome Fillioux
We are using Netbeans since early 6.x versions, and are very happy
with it.
RubyMine is also an excellent choice, but you'll have to buy it.
For the Eclipse part of the question, there is two solutions :
- Aptana
- 3rdRails (not free)
but I was not please last time I gave them a try.
On the other hand, most of the RoR community is quite fond of Textmate
or similar code editors.
Paweł K
syntax etc.), and then they can also move to Terminal+TextMate or any
other "hardcore text editor" ;)
Mauro
I'm using netbeans and I think it is a complete ide for develop rails apps.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
>
>
Michael Pavling
> Really strange that I cannot find a lot of discussion on a good RoR
> IDE.
Very strange indeed. If you search the archive, you can order by date:
Of recent discussions of the same question, this was a fairly long one.
Edmond Kachale
I think NetBeans 6.9 is a good choice for beginners (hints, checks
syntax etc.), and then they can also move to Terminal+TextMate or any
other "hardcore text editor" ;)
Netbeans 6.8, for example, has a Cucumber plugin (for those who write Cucumber features). But still I find the terminal a "wonderful IDE", especially when using Terminator + vim. With Terminator, you can have multiple terminals in one window.
With terminator, I use vim on one window, script/server on the second window, git on the third and forth windows. I have customized vim configurations that I use to help me with hints, syntax highlighting, e.t.c.
---
Edmond
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/) | Malawi
Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717
"Many people doubt open source software and probably don’t realize that there is an alternative… which is just as good.." -- Kevin Scannell
On 24 Sie, 10:15, Jerome Fillioux <jerome.filli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are using Netbeans since early 6.x versions, and are very happy
> with it.
> RubyMine is also an excellent choice, but you'll have to buy it.
> For the Eclipse part of the question, there is two solutions :
> - Aptana
> - 3rdRails (not free)
> but I was not please last time I gave them a try.
>
> On the other hand, most of the RoR community is quite fond of Textmate
> or similar code editors.
>
> On 24 août, 03:25, ZRiddick <tcr.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Really strange that I cannot find a lot of discussion on a good RoR
> > IDE. Most of what I have pulled up dates to 2008. Also the Eclipse
> > IDE has trouble finding the JRE running on Windows 7 64 bit. Very
> > surprised that Eclipse is not more concerned with having there
> > platform work better with JRE since it is so dependent upon it. I
> > dropped it like a hot potato for this reason. I am going to give the
> > netbeans a go but I would like a lot more input on the matter from
> > seasoned RoR developers. If I am missing something please let me know.
> > I am really interested in switching to Ruby for developing enterprise
> > apps. Otherwise I will be forced to go with visual studio wfc.
Mauro
> window, git on the third and forth windows. I have customized vim
> configurations that I use to help me with hints, syntax highlighting, e.t.c.
I'll give a try ;-)
Mauro
It has the same options like kde konsole.
Robert Walker
I'll give you a hint, in case this hasn't been clear from previous
posts. The reason you don't find a lot of discussion about IDEs for Ruby
on Rails is because most of us don't use an IDE. The reason is not that
IDEs for Ruby on Rails don't exist, it's because we don't use IDEs by
choice.
I use IDEs for my Java work all the time. Mostly because Java makes it
nearly impossible to work without one. My IDE of choice in the Java
world is Netbeans. However, not having to use an IDE at all was one of
the primary joys of Ruby on Rails, and it's one of the many things that
drew me to the framework. This may sound strange to you, but I promise
you I'm not alone in this opinion.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Leonardo Mateo
You put this as if it is a threat for rubyists that you go with MSVS?
If you go with that is your problem, not ours. It's your call, not ours.
As Michael said, there has been several threads, and some of them
pretty large about IDE's for RoR, about if they exists, about if
they're necessary, about who uses what, about if VIM is better than
Textmate or the other way around, about almost enything on this topic.
--
Leonardo Mateo.
There's no place like ~
gezope
links, I'm sure you can also find it.
The answer is: depends on your need. Do you want it for free? Easy to
use or easy to install? Or fast starting?
Netbeans, Eclipse + Aptana plugin, Aptana 3 (standalone) or Textmate
are very good choices.
If you are using Win, than you can try Scite, it's very fast. The
bigger ones have much more features, but they are much slower. For
first steps Scite is simply ideal, all you need is included.
I also had problems and I hated Eclipse in the beginning. But take it
easy, just see how easy you can add a plugin, and it will work for
you. I'm sure you can solve problems with JRE also, maybe you haven't
tried it enough. If you have problems with it, better idea to change
win to Linux or Mac, than change Eclipse. And I think there is a
plugin, which made to configure Eclipse easily and add more plugins
easily - you can find it in sourceforgenet. If you prefer to choose
from a list, than Netbeans can be your choice.
good luck,
gezope
Todd Weeks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> Thanks all for your help. I must admit part of the purpose of my post
> was to
> vent my own ignorance. Your responses are very encouraging.
> I'm getting better at searching the group itself. Happy learned how to
> put.
> LOL But its nice to know there are persons out there to help when
> needed.
> Any of you ever play with Komodo?
Yes! I recommend it highly -- it's my primary editor for Rails, and
indeed for anything that doesn't need an IDE.
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
MattB
You will get lots of opinions, but the only way to know for sure is to
try them out, and see what works for you. Even then there will be lots
of features that are not apparent or exposed at first, so you need to
take a bit of time to get to know them before making a decision.
I'm currently using Aptana Studio 3 beta, and really like having
integrated terminal windows in tabs - I tend to keep one open across
the bottom for rails console, run rails under a tabbed terminal, and
keep another around for command line stuff. It does also have other
tabs (besides , such as a web browser, but for for viewing a Rails app
I prefer to use a real browser.
Git integration is also done well.
RubyMine looks great on the code completion front, and ability to
cross reference to the source code in gems, and to documentation - I
wouldn't mind more of that in Aptana, but I'd miss the views too much
to switch.
Komodo is mor eeditor than IDE IMO, but I only gave it a cursory look.
I haven't tried textmate. I found NetBeans slow and clunky.
Your view, and everyone elses, will differ. Go try some.
Matt.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> You will get lots of opinions, but the only way to know for sure is to
> try them out, and see what works for you. Even then there will be lots
> of features that are not apparent or exposed at first, so you need to
> take a bit of time to get to know them before making a decision.
>
> I'm currently using Aptana Studio 3 beta, and really like having
> integrated terminal windows in tabs - I tend to keep one open across
> the bottom for rails console, run rails under a tabbed terminal, and
> keep another around for command line stuff.
I find this nearly useless for Rails. I'd rather use a real terminal
program (on Mac OS, that means iTerm).
> It does also have other
> tabs (besides , such as a web browser, but for for viewing a Rails app
> I prefer to use a real browser.
>
> Git integration is also done well.
Haven't used Aptana in a while. I've been very, very impressed with
NetBeans' Git plugin, though.
>
> RubyMine looks great on the code completion front, and ability to
> cross reference to the source code in gems, and to documentation - I
> wouldn't mind more of that in Aptana, but I'd miss the views too much
> to switch.
>
> Komodo is mor eeditor than IDE IMO, but I only gave it a cursory look.
That is correct. For Rails, that's all you need. (There is a Komodo
IDE, but it's something like $250.)
> I haven't tried textmate. I found NetBeans slow and clunky.
How recently have you used NetBeans? Since 6.8 or so it's been an
amazingly good IDE (it certainly *used* to be slow and clunky before
that). I don't recommend it (or any IDE) for Rails, but when you need
an IDE, NetBeans is your best choice. It has far outstripped
Eclipse/Aptana in recent versions.
>
> Your view, and everyone elses, will differ. Go try some.
>
> Matt.
Best,
Yiannis
I should go with. I tried both and I feel the same... The most people
are using vim in ruby community, why? I heard that vim scripting can
be replaced with ruby, is this true and that is the reason that the
most people are using vim and ruby?
Emacs I heard is more powerful than vim, you can even play tetris but
the popularity fall in contrast of vim which has grown very much. I
know about the editor wars but I really can't decide and the more
opinions I read, the more I am confused...
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> I think I should try Vim or emacs with rails but I don't know with who
> I should go with.
Why do you want to use either, instead of something like KomodoEdit or
TextMate?
> I tried both and I feel the same... The most people
> are using vim in ruby community, why? I heard that vim scripting can
> be replaced with ruby, is this true and that is the reason that the
> most people are using vim and ruby?
I have no idea. I can't stand vi, though vim certainly sucks less
badly.
>
> Emacs I heard is more powerful than vim, you can even play tetris but
> the popularity fall in contrast of vim which has grown very much. I
> know about the editor wars but I really can't decide and the more
> opinions I read, the more I am confused...
I like Emacs much better than vi. But I think it's silly to use a
console editor on a GUI box (I don't like Xemacs or Aquamacs).
Yiannis
> TextMate?
2) Textmate doesn't have real code completion
3) Textmate isn't good as an editor... it doesn't have tabs if you
don't use a project and even to move the sidebar, you should do a
"hack" to set it up to the right!
4) Vim and Emacs are much more powerful and extendable.
Komodoedit... hmmm I don't know him, I might try it but I doubt it can
compare with vim and emacs, this editors are used from programmers
many years.
I have used all the three and it is clear that Vim and Emacs is the
way to go for me, but I can't decide clearly... I am a bit more for
emacs.
Why do you think it is silly to use it on a GUI box? :)
Leonardo Mateo
<li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Johndel Deliyiannis wrote:
>> I think I should try Vim or emacs with rails but I don't know with who
>> I should go with.
your fingertips.
>
> Why do you want to use either, instead of something like KomodoEdit or
> TextMate?
>
>> I tried both and I feel the same... The most people
>> are using vim in ruby community, why? I heard that vim scripting can
>> be replaced with ruby, is this true and that is the reason that the
>> most people are using vim and ruby?
>
I use Vim. Mostly because it just feels good for me, with the right
plugins I have everything I use on every IDE I've used before (that
is, code competion, syntax highlighting, code reference, tabs, and a
few more).
It is highly configurable, and portable (in about 300Kb I have my full
'IDE' everywhere I want) between platforms, and when you need it on a
remote server, it's a really nice to have.
Also, I abuse of the multi buffer edition on one tab.
And, yes, you can also use the mouse if you like it to change the
buffers size, select text, etc.
> I have no idea. I can't stand vi, though vim certainly sucks less
> badly.
>
>>
>> Emacs I heard is more powerful than vim, you can even play tetris but
>> the popularity fall in contrast of vim which has grown very much. I
>> know about the editor wars but I really can't decide and the more
>> opinions I read, the more I am confused...
Do you really wanna play tetris when you're programming? The power of
Emacs has nothing to do with the ability to play tetris on it.
Both editors are nice, you have to try them to see which you like the most.
I tried Emacs before Vim for rails, and just didn't feel good to me,
maybe because I'm using Vim as the default text editor for Linux for
about 9 years.
>
> I like Emacs much better than vi. But I think it's silly to use a
> console editor on a GUI box (I don't like Xemacs or Aquamacs).
>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser
> http://www.marnen.org
> mar...@marnen.org
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
>
>
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
>> Why do you want to use either, instead of something like KomodoEdit or
>> TextMate?
[...]
> Komodoedit... hmmm I don't know him, I might try it but I doubt it can
> compare with vim and emacs, this editors are used from programmers
> many years.
If you don't know about it, then why are you dismissing it out of hand?
Try it!
>
> I have used all the three and it is clear that Vim and Emacs is the
> way to go for me, but I can't decide clearly... I am a bit more for
> emacs.
>
> Why do you think it is silly to use it on a GUI box? :)
Because console editors are great for text-only environments, but are
less generally usable than GUI editors. I love Emacs in SSH sessions or
for quick edits in the Terminal, but I go nuts very quickly when I have
to use it on a GUI box. There are many things that simply work better
with a mouse and a menu-driven interface. No console-only editor can
give me that, and therefore no console-only editor is suitable to use on
a GUI box by my standards. (No, Xemacs is not the answer -- it sucks.)
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-koser
Larry Meadors
Robert Walker
> I use Vim. Mostly because it just feels good for me, with the right
> plugins I have everything I use on every IDE I've used before (that
> is, code competion, syntax highlighting, code reference, tabs, and a
> few more).
As long as Vim uses that damn modal editing (i.e. 'i' for insert, Escape
to exit insert and ':' for commands) I won't be switching to it.
Before you call me crazy... I understand Vim, and I use it when
absolutely necessary. If that's your thing, then great for you. I'm just
saying it's not for me, so I'll stick with TextMate. At least until I
find something better. However, every time I've tried alternatives I
just keep coming back to TextMate.
Leonardo Mateo
> Leonardo Mateo wrote:
>> I use Vim. Mostly because it just feels good for me, with the right
>> plugins I have everything I use on every IDE I've used before (that
>> is, code competion, syntax highlighting, code reference, tabs, and a
>> few more).
>
> As long as Vim uses that damn modal editing (i.e. 'i' for insert, Escape
> to exit insert and ':' for commands) I won't be switching to it.
times I said "..feels good for you..."?
If you don't like it, then don't use it.
That "damn modal editing" you says is an esential part of Vim. If you
don't like it, then Vim is not for you.
>
> Before you call me crazy...
I wont.
> I understand Vim, and I use it when
> absolutely necessary. If that's your thing, then great for you. I'm just
> saying it's not for me, so I'll stick with TextMate. At least until I
> find something better. However, every time I've tried alternatives I
> just keep coming back to TextMate.
Ok, so TextMate is what feels good (or great, or whatever) for you.
MattB
> I find this nearly useless for Rails. I'd rather use a real terminal
> program (on Mac OS, that means iTerm).
choose, and how you configure it. Everything else is just "window
dressing" so to speak! :-) What Rails command line related activity
can you perform in iTerm (or any other for that matter) that you can't
in a shell embedded an IDE?
> How recently have you used NetBeans?
compared to Aptana. Those who subscibe to the "an editor is enough"
would rightly say the same about Aptana or any other Rails capable
IDE.
As I made a point of saying at both the beginning and end of my post,
the OP needs to try a few out and see what works for him, but since he
specifically asked about IDEs. Unfortunately as is often the cae with
these subjects, it is already degenerating into a mine is better than
yours, IDE vs. Editor, GUI vs Command Line Editor, VI vs EMACS debate,
even if not yet an outright flamewar...
Matt.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> With reference to Aptana terminal tabs for Rails console, server &
> general command line you wrote:
>
>> I find this nearly useless for Rails. I'd rather use a real terminal
>> program (on Mac OS, that means iTerm).
>
> Care to be more specific? A terminal is only as good as the shell you
> choose, and how you configure it. Everything else is just "window
> dressing" so to speak! :-) What Rails command line related activity
> can you perform in iTerm (or any other for that matter) that you can't
> in a shell embedded an IDE?
None. I just haven't found the IDE shells to be very pleasant to use.
>
>> How recently have you used NetBeans?
>
> Last week! I just found it too big and bloated for Rails needs
I agree with that. I just don't agree that it's slow and clunky in
general, at least on Mac OS.
> compared to Aptana. Those who subscibe to the "an editor is enough"
> would rightly say the same about Aptana or any other Rails capable
> IDE.
Right.
>
> As I made a point of saying at both the beginning and end of my post,
> the OP needs to try a few out and see what works for him, but since he
> specifically asked about IDEs.
But the way he asked, it was clear that he assumed one was required.
> Unfortunately as is often the cae with
> these subjects, it is already degenerating into a mine is better than
> yours, IDE vs. Editor, GUI vs Command Line Editor, VI vs EMACS debate,
> even if not yet an outright flamewar...
My editor *is* better than yours, at least for me. :)
Seriously, I used to use Aptana for Rails, but stopped when I realized I
was only using it as an editor.
Try working in Rails without an IDE if you haven't already. I believe
you will be happier.
>
> Matt.
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
Sent from my iPhone
Michael Schuerig
> >> How recently have you used NetBeans?
> >
> > Last week! I just found it too big and bloated for Rails needs
>
> I agree with that. I just don't agree that it's slow and clunky in
> general, at least on Mac OS.
This seems like the perfect time to lodge my complaints ;-)
I've been using NetBeans 6.9 for a couple of weeks now and it seems to
be disintegrating over time. At some point it became convinced that I'm
working with Rails 2.x, which I am not, and now tries to run non-
existing script/server. In new files, NetBeans's own templates are not
expanded. I never found a way to make the debugger work with Rails 3 and
bundler. And, worst of all, at times the editor completely freezes for
from 30 secs to over a minute.
For none of these I've found a way to cure it. Particularly the freezing
problem seems already to have been reported as a bug more than 50 times.
Yes, I'm still using NetBeans. The alternatives (on Linux) such as Emacs
and Eclipse/Aptana are no more attractive and I've used them both
before. Although I more or less know Emacs for 20 years, its features
beyond editing are too arcane for me. Aptana, particularly
RadRails/Studio for Rails 3, had still many problems of their own, last
time I looked.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mic...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> On Wednesday 25 August 2010, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> >> How recently have you used NetBeans?
>> >
>> > Last week! I just found it too big and bloated for Rails needs
>>
>> I agree with that. I just don't agree that it's slow and clunky in
>> general, at least on Mac OS.
>
> This seems like the perfect time to lodge my complaints ;-)
>
> I've been using NetBeans 6.9 for a couple of weeks now and it seems to
> be disintegrating over time
Yeah, my recollection last time I used it with Rails was that the
integration wasn't terribly good. Oy.
[...]
> And, worst of all, at times the editor completely freezes for
> from 30 secs to over a minute.
I have occasionally seen this on Mac OS when I've been doing very
resource-heavy stuff.
>
> For none of these I've found a way to cure it. Particularly the freezing
> problem seems already to have been reported as a bug more than 50 times.
NetBeans' core team seem to be very skilled programmers, but often
somewhat unresponsive to bug reports. Rather like some other core
teams... :)
>
> Yes, I'm still using NetBeans. The alternatives (on Linux) such as Emacs
> and Eclipse/Aptana are no more attractive and I've used them both
> before.
There are other alternatives for Linux. In descending order, I'd
recommend KomodoEdit, jEdit, or gEdit.
[...]
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
> mailto:mic...@schuerig.de
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
Best,
Agoofin
simply turn some of the features off. I've used Rails for a few years
and a basic editor just seems so, well basic. Netbeans isn't perfect,
I don't use it to run the server or do the tests but for the simple
pleasure of jumping between controller method to view just cannot be
beat.
If you're on Linux with KDE, Kate works well as a basic editor.
Windoze - try Notepad++, very lightweight and easy to use.
But in the end, it's your preference. Find something you're
comfortable with and go with it.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> Netbeans works well, if you're concerned about the bloat/response
> simply turn some of the features off. I've used Rails for a few years
> and a basic editor just seems so, well basic.
Right! What more do you need?
> Netbeans isn't perfect,
> I don't use it to run the server or do the tests
Then why bother with it? You're just using it as a basic editor -- and
for that, KomodoEdit blows it out of the water.
> but for the simple
> pleasure of jumping between controller method to view just cannot be
> beat.
I'll agree that that's convenient, and one of the few things I miss from
RadRails. But I don't miss it that much, particularly when Cmd-Sh-O in
Komodo opens any file from a few characters of its name.
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
Iain Davis
(and Ruby), so far I've primarily been using Emacs and command line.
But I also I had given NetBeans (and a couple of other IDEs) a brief
try on the off-chance that I was missing out on something that I would
like to have.
I found that Emacs and shell window works well for the way I work,
though. :). I'm using EmacsW32+nXhtml (see:
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/nXhtml/doc/nxhtml.html#summary) and a
shell window. :)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 15:55, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Because console editors are great for text-only environments, but are
> less generally usable than GUI editors. I love Emacs in SSH sessions or
> for quick edits in the Terminal, but I go nuts very quickly when I have
> to use it on a GUI box. There are many things that simply work better
> with a mouse and a menu-driven interface. No console-only editor can
> give me that, and therefore no console-only editor is suitable to use on
> a GUI box by my standards. (No, Xemacs is not the answer -- it sucks.)
Interesting. I'm of almost opposite mind: I prefer to use emacs on a
GUI platform; I hop back-and-forth between being in a "keyboard only"
mode when doing stuff in emacs to "mousing, mouse cut-n-paste, etc."
mode when I flip to some other window. If I have to use emacs in the
non-gui environment, I feel locked in, and if it goes on for very
long, I'll find some way to switch to a gui environment to do the
work.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 22:23, Agoofin <thebs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't use it to run the server or do the tests but for the simple
> pleasure of jumping between controller method to view just cannot be
> beat.
Indeed. That was one thing I was looking for when I trying out
NetBeans. I was finding that the way the files are arranged for a
Rails application and switching amongst them in dired was painful.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 22:23, Agoofin <thebs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Windoze - try Notepad++, very lightweight and easy to use.
A good recommendation. Its lightweight, follows the windows paradigm,
has syntax highlighting that is easily configurable. It tempted me
away from Emacs for a while. :)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 22:23, Agoofin <thebs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But in the end, it's your preference. Find something you're comfortable with and go with it.
Very true. Requires a fair bit of investment of time, also. Trying out
new IDEs, editors, tools, working in them long enough to determine
whether they help or hinder the way you work, and then learning the
one you like more thoroughly.
--
As I write this, I'm trying to recall what I didn't like about
NetBeans, and realizing I can't explain precisely, which makes me
wonder if I should try it again more objectively. :)
Iain
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> This is discussion has been very helpful to me: I'm learning Rails
> (and Ruby), so far I've primarily been using Emacs and command line.
> But I also I had given NetBeans (and a couple of other IDEs) a brief
> try on the off-chance that I was missing out on something that I would
> like to have.
>
> I found that Emacs and shell window works well for the way I work,
> though. :). I'm using EmacsW32+nXhtml (see:
> http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/nXhtml/doc/nxhtml.html#summary) and a
> shell window. :)
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 15:55, Marnen Laibow-Koser
> <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>> Because console editors are great for text-only environments, but are
>> less generally usable than GUI editors. �I love Emacs in SSH sessions or
>> for quick edits in the Terminal, but I go nuts very quickly when I have
>> to use it on a GUI box. �There are many things that simply work better
>> with a mouse and a menu-driven interface. �No console-only editor can
>> give me that, and therefore no console-only editor is suitable to use on
>> a GUI box by my standards. �(No, Xemacs is not the answer -- it sucks.)
>
> Interesting. I'm of almost opposite mind:
No, I don't really think you are. See below.
> I prefer to use emacs on a
> GUI platform; I hop back-and-forth between being in a "keyboard only"
> mode when doing stuff in emacs to "mousing, mouse cut-n-paste, etc."
> mode when I flip to some other window. If I have to use emacs in the
> non-gui environment, I feel locked in, and if it goes on for very
> long, I'll find some way to switch to a gui environment to do the
> work.
Exactly! I prefer working in a graphical environment as well. But my
point was that in a graphical environment, it makes more sense to use an
editor that's been *designed* for a graphical environment -- in other
words, not Emacs, but a good GUI editor like KomodoEdit. I feel locked
in when I use Emacs in a console environment, but there's nothing I can
really do about it. I feel even more locked in when I use (console)
Emacs in a GUI environment, because I know there are other editors where
I could use the mouse.
Your attitude is similar enough to mine, if I understand it correctly,
that I suspect if you try a good graphical editor like KomodoEdit or
jEdit, you won't go back to Emacs in GUI situations.
It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to think the only options
are NetBeans, Eclipse/Aptana, TextMate, vi, and Emacs. There are *lots*
of good editors out there...
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
Iain Davis
> that I suspect if you try a good graphical editor like KomodoEdit or
> jEdit, you won't go back to Emacs in GUI situations.
*grin*. Certainly possible. I think I tried KomodoEdit, but that was
long while ago, who knows how I'd feel about it now. Needs change, and
products change as well. :)
> It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to think the only options
> are NetBeans, Eclipse/Aptana, TextMate, vi, and Emacs. There are *lots*
> of good editors out there...
There are days when it seems like there is as many as there are
programmers. Maybe more. :)
It could be that I keep coming back to Emacs because it seems the most
easily bent to "latest new thing I'm learning or working with" without
relearning the basics. In part because, it has been around a very long
time so there is plenty of tech notes, stuff to download to enhance
it, etc. For instance, last year I was doing some stuff in OCAML, a
brief search turned up Tuareg-mode for editing and executing OCAML
files. :)
I also will switch editors depending which things I'm actually working
on...there was a while that I was juggling two different projects, one
that I wrote code in MSVC for, and the other I was doing stuff in
Emacs. :)
Hmm. I wonder what support NetBeans has for latex. Time for a web search.
Iain
MattB
> Aptana, particularly
> RadRails/Studio for Rails 3, had still many problems of their own, last
> time I looked.
3 beta. Works great for me with Rails 3. I'm on a Mac though, so can't
comment on how it looks or behaves under Linux. Your own requirements
are ultimately what counts though, so it may not be the one for you,
and there are plenty of other choices, but if NetBeans isn't doing it
for you...
Bill Walton
> On Aug 25, 12:29 am, Michael Schuerig <mich...@schuerig.de> wrote:
>> > > Last week! I just found it too big and bloated for Rails needs
Make sure you're using the Ruby-only version of NB unless you really
need the other stuff. There's definitely a difference. My first
experience with NB was with the 'fulll' package and it was very
disappointing. The Ruby-only version was a big improvement.
Best regards,
Bill
Michael Schuerig
That's what I'm using. I've had version 6.9 installed with regular
updates, but now I've installed 6.9.1 and things look slightly better.
My ~/.netbeans/6.9 directory has grown to an amazing 856MB, largely
consisting of downloaded updates, I reckon. Is there a way to delete the
obsolete stuff without losing preferences?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mic...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
Bill Walton
> My ~/.netbeans/6.9 directory has grown to an amazing 856MB, largely
> consisting of downloaded updates, I reckon.
Ouch. OTOH, that's like $0.10 worth of storage now, right?
> Is there a way to delete the obsolete stuff without losing preferences?
That's a good question and I don't know the answer. Be worth asking
on the NB list. Personally, I don't let any software do automatic
updates anymore.
Best regards,
Bill
Michael Pavling
> Sorry to jump in mid-stream here, but....
>
>> On Aug 25, 12:29 am, Michael Schuerig <mich...@schuerig.de> wrote:
>
>>> > > Last week! I just found it too big and bloated for Rails needs
>
> Make sure you're using the Ruby-only version of NB unless you really
> need the other stuff.
The "Ruby" version is very bloated - including Glassfish and a whole
bunch of stuff you probably don't need.
Install the bare version (although I personally go for the PHP version
as it's the smallest of the packaged downloads, and I do the
occasional bit of PHP) and add the "Ruby and Rails" plugin.
And yes, the debugging works fine (apart from "break on error");
conditional breakpoints, watches, variable tracking, immediate
evaluation (that one is a bit clunky though...); and has done since
the first time I tried it in Jan 2009.
Michael Pavling
> and has done since the first time I tried it in Jan 2009.
Correction, it was April when I got debugging working :-)
Marnen Laibow-Koser
Good to know. Maybe the problem had to do with using JRuby on this
project (which is a Swing/Monkeybars app, so I can't use MRI).
Michael Schuerig
<mic...@schuerig.de> wrote:
> > My ~/.netbeans/6.9 directory has grown to an amazing 856MB, largely
> > consisting of downloaded updates, I reckon.
>
> Ouch. OTOH, that's like $0.10 worth of storage now, right?
Yeah, and I was celebrating too early anyway. The freezes are still
there.
The problem with the obsolete files is not so much the space they're
taking up. They are in my backup set as well, meaning that they are
wasting space in other places and have to be checked for changes each
time I make a backup (i.e., often).
stevo84
designed specificaly for Ruby/Rails. Just give it a try and You will
search no longer
Ed Howland
> I develop under linux that doesn't have textmate.
> I'm using netbeans and I think it is a complete ide for develop rails apps.
>
>
Thought I'd chime in here. Although I use mac+textmate [1] now,
earlier I used gEdit under Ubuntu. You can pimp it out to be like TM
by following these instructions:
http://grigio.org/pimp_my_gedit_was_textmate_linux
Cheers,
Ed
[1] Got the mac only to use textmate with RoR work.
Ed Howland
http://greenprogrammer.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/ed_howland
Greg Donald
> [1] Got the mac only to use textmate with RoR work.
So you got yourself a $3500 text editor? Congrats.
--
Greg Donald
destiney.com | gregdonald.com
Ed Howland
there. Python comes with one (Idle).
[1] By good I mean free/open source and best of breed.
Rewriting the Python description of IDLE:
"coded in 100% pure Ruby, using the tkinter GUI toolkit
cross-platform: works on Windows and Unix
multi-window text editor with multiple undo, Ruby colorizing and many
other features, e.g. smart indent and call tips
Ruby shell window (a.k.a. interactive interpreter)
debugger (not complete, but you can set breakpoints, view and step)"
It seems to me we have all these pieces already. Wirble, ruby-debug,
window library wrappers.
It should be so good, X-Platform that it should ship with the basic
Ruby distribution (like rubygems does now w/1.9). Or it could ship as
a gem.
Other features I'd like. RVM and Bundler support. Rails/Sinatra
colorizing*, code completion. (I don't like tips or hints - hated
BBedit for that reason).
*extensible with snippets/bundles.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed Howland
Yes! And I'll never go back. :)
Seriously, I wanted to add a few items to my wish list for a Pure Ruby IDE:
* Access to Rake tasks (with ability to set environment (production, test)
* RSpec and Cucumber aware/runners
* Generators (Rails/RSpec/Cucumber others)
* Code/Object inspectors - tied to the file (in the gem) where defined.
* Code completion on require 'gemname'.
* generate a new project file (rails/sinatra app, gem or standalone).
* integrate with git (or swappable to svn, etc with API)
* (optional) DB inspector (like phpMyAdmin).
Customizable by code snippets/bundles written in Ruby.
Not limited to Ruby. Colorize/Syntax completion
HTML/CSS/Javascript/ERb/HAML/SASS/SQL.
And while were at it: Integrate with Johnson to run/debug JS.
Cheers,
Ed
Greg Donald
>> So you got yourself a $3500 text editor? Congrats.
>
I say the same thing about Emacs.
Yiannis
found that this is a problem. We should use cross platform tools if we
want more people to try rails. All the screencasts I have seen are
using with textmate, for example how easy it is to setup an autotest
without growl, rspec without output from textmate etc.? How do you do
that with other editors, like komodoedit?
On 27 Αύγ, 02:13, Greg Donald <gdon...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> I feel that the whole community is supporting mac and textmate but I
> found that this is a problem. We should use cross platform tools if we
> want more people to try rails. All the screencasts I have seen are
> using with textmate, for example how easy it is to setup an autotest
> without growl, rspec without output from textmate etc.? How do you do
> that with other editors, like komodoedit?
You don't. You use the shell like God meant you to. :D
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rails doesn't need an IDE.
For Rails, your editor should just be a project-aware editor, not an
editor/shell/VCS manager/godknowswhatelse. Save the IDEs for frameworks
that need them.
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
Andre Lewis
Peter De Berdt
I feel that the whole community is supporting mac and textmate but I
found that this is a problem. We should use cross platform tools if we
want more people to try rails. All the screencasts I have seen are
using with textmate, for example how easy it is to setup an autotest
without growl, rspec without output from textmate etc.? How do you do
that with other editors, like komodoedit?
So you got yourself a $3500 text editor? Congrats.Yes! And I'll never go back. :)I say the same thing about Emacs.
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
Ed Howland
being tongue-in-cheek about the my reasons for getting a Mac.)
Yiannis has a valid point too. There should be a nice X-Platform IDE
that ships with Ruby core or is at least considered the de-facto
standard. Some people just take to a language if it comes with a nice
environment to work in. Eclipse for Java, VS for C++. Just a personal
choice, but one that should be available, and might attract more
developers.
I think there is a golden opportunity here. Almost all the pieces
exist to create a community developed IDE. Perhaps limited in scope at
first, but extensible.
There is the TKText widget for the editor. guirb [1] for the irb
shell, and we can link to ruby-debug-ide for debugging support.
I think we have to figure out syntax colorizing, and code-completion.
Does anyone know of a tabbed window widget for Tk?
Also, is it possible to just eval Tk directly as a string? Then
additonal widgets could be added at runtime.
[1] http://github.com/martindemello/guirb.git
Cheers,
Ed
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
>
Greg Donald
> Some people just take to a language if it comes with a nice
> environment to work in.
You mean like a bash prompt on Linux?
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> Peter makes very good points. Thanks for the wrap-up. (And I was just
> being tongue-in-cheek about the my reasons for getting a Mac.)
>
> Yiannis has a valid point too. There should be a nice X-Platform IDE
> that ships with Ruby core
I'd be curious to see what the Ruby community could come up with. I do
like the idea of something like IDLE that's actually *designed for* and
*benefits* typical Ruby projects.
(I don't dislike IDEs in general, and I'm even using NetBeans for a
JRuby/Monkeybars/Swing project, and loving it. I just believe that IDEs
are completely inappropriate for *Rails*.)
> or is at least considered the de-facto
> standard.
Why?
> Some people just take to a language if it comes with a nice
> environment to work in.
A good OS, a good text editor, and a good terminal emulator make up a
*very* nice environment. Not everything needs an IDE.
> Eclipse for Java,
What? No. Eclipse doesn't come with Java, it's not as nice as
NetBeans, and in fact Sun is behind NetBeans. Analogy FAIL. :)
> VS for C++.
Is that really an advantage?
[...]
> I think there is a golden opportunity here. Almost all the pieces
> exist to create a community developed IDE. Perhaps limited in scope at
> first, but extensible.
No one is stopping you! I for one will be very, very interested to see
what you come up with.
>
> There is the TKText widget for the editor. guirb [1] for the irb
> shell, and we can link to ruby-debug-ide for debugging support.
>
> I think we have to figure out syntax colorizing, and code-completion.
> Does anyone know of a tabbed window widget for Tk?
>
> Also, is it possible to just eval Tk directly as a string? Then
> additonal widgets could be added at runtime.
Please, not Tk. The Ruby API is apparently awful, and the resulting
applications tend to be really ugly. This is probably a good candidate
for Swing/Monkeybars, or maybe wx.
>
>
> [1] http://github.com/martindemello/guirb.git
Iain Davis
>> Yiannis has a valid point too. There should be a nice X-Platform IDE
>> that ships with Ruby core
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> I'd be curious to see what the Ruby community could come up with. I do
> like the idea of something like IDLE that's actually *designed for* and
> *benefits* typical Ruby projects.
I'd love to see the result of such a project. Can it be finished by
yesterday? :). I'd volunteer to help, but I'm too new to Ruby to
actually be helpful. :)
> Ed Howland wrote:
> Some people just take to a language if it comes with a nice
> environment to work in.
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> A good OS, a good text editor, and a good terminal emulator make up a
> *very* nice environment. Not everything needs an IDE.
It does, but it doesn't appeal to the audience that Ed may be thinking
of. That audience is going to be drawn in much more quickly if they
can download a single package that a) includes both ruby and an IDE (a
low-footprint one similar to IDLE will do), b) does not require any
configuration c) does not require installation of other products
either before or after installation of the package to get started.
That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a
icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute
the ruby code. :)
Python is very accessible that way. I had a professor in college who
is a big fan of Python, he'd use it for teaching in many of his
courses. The ability to download a single installer, run it, and get
going in IDLE made that possible.
Iain
Marnen Laibow-Koser
[...]
> It does, but it doesn't appeal to the audience that Ed may be thinking
> of. That audience is going to be drawn in much more quickly if they
> can download a single package that a) includes both ruby and an IDE (a
> low-footprint one similar to IDLE will do), b) does not require any
> configuration c) does not require installation of other products
> either before or after installation of the package to get started.
>
> That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a
> icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute
> the ruby code. :)
You can do that already. irb comes standard, and you can use any text
editor for files. If you want to run scripts, "ruby my_script.rb" will
do fine. Where's the problem?
>
> Python is very accessible that way. I had a professor in college who
> is a big fan of Python, he'd use it for teaching in many of his
> courses. The ability to download a single installer, run it, and get
> going in IDLE made that possible.
Again: you can do this already. You already have a text editor and a
shell suitable for the purpose. Just as with Python, the only
installation necessary is the interpreter and standard library.
>
> Iain
Ed Howland
appeal to the audience that Ed may be thinking
> of. That audience is going to be drawn in much more quickly if they
> can download a single package that a) includes both ruby and an IDE (a
> low-footprint one similar to IDLE will do), b) does not require any
> configuration c) does not require installation of other products
> either before or after installation of the package to get started.
>
> That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a
> icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute
> the ruby code. :)
>
> Python is very accessible that way. I had a professor in college who
> is a big fan of Python, he'd use it for teaching in many of his
> courses. The ability to download a single installer, run it, and get
> going in IDLE made that possible.
>
> Iain
>
I agree with Iain, here. I'm not trying to preach to the converted. Or
to further fan the flames in the editor/IDE wars. But lot's of
universities have settled on Python for just that reason: jump in
simplicity.
I think that irb is nice. wirble even nicer. ruby-debug is great. But
these are all separate tools that you have to install (except for
irb).
And I agree with Iain that it should have a low footprint.
I checked out arcadia, but it blew on a missing (non-obvious)
dependency But it sounds like it might fit the bill, being X-platform
and based on Ruby/Tk.
As far as Tk goes. I am not particularly married to any one windowing
toolkit. Would wx, gtk or qt be a better fit, and still be X-platform?
I think we should target Windows, Linux and Mac. Tk caught my eye
because IDLE is written in it (Tkinter) and makes it a breeze to
create other desktop type apps in Python.
I know this sort of thing has been tried before. Scite, FXruby etc.
But since they have fallen (or nearly so) the radar, perhaps a fresh
approach is needed.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Iain Davis > It does, but it doesn't
> appeal to the audience that Ed may be thinking
>> is a big fan of Python, he'd use it for teaching in many of his
>> courses. The ability to download a single installer, run it, and get
>> going in IDLE made that possible.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>
> I agree with Iain, here. I'm not trying to preach to the converted. Or
> to further fan the flames in the editor/IDE wars. But lot's of
> universities have settled on Python for just that reason: jump in
> simplicity.
Really? Or is it simply that Python has had longer to get traction than
Ruby? Ruby has the same jump-in simplicity as Python -- in fact, it has
more, since it's easier to write working code in Ruby (IMHO -- I can't
seem to get anything done in Python, and I know of other Ruby developers
who feel similarly).
Do you know of anyone who *actually* chose Python over Ruby based solely
(or mostly) on the presence of IDLE?
Marnen Laibow-Koser
>
[...]
> I think that irb is nice. wirble even nicer. ruby-debug is great. But
> these are all separate tools that you have to install (except for
> irb).
I've never used Wirble as far as I recall. ruby-debug is *one* gem.
Where's the big barrier?
Iain Davis
>> That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a
>> icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute
>> the ruby code. :)
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> You can do that already. irb comes standard, and you can use any text
> editor for files. If you want to run scripts, "ruby my_script.rb" will
> do fine. Where's the problem?
Not quite the same. irb can execute code, but (at least I believe this
to be true, I'm still new around here...) it isn't an editor. Yes, you
can edit code in a text editor, and execute code from the command
line...but that doesn't fulfill the criteria.
There's still going to be folks that aren't going to be interested in
a product where they have to go to the command-line/shell to start
using the product. The idea isn't even part of their world-view, even
if they have a vague notion of what a shell is.
I switch back and forth across the GUI/shell dividing line pretty
frequently, but that sort of thing was a complete mystery to most of
the people I've worked with in the past. On occasion, when we had
projects that there just wasn't GUI tools for, I had do some
hand-holding through those portions of the project.
My own preference right now for Ruby/Rails is Emacs+shell, but I've
worked with folks for whom that'd be an exercise in frustration. Both
come from an entirely different world than the one they know.
I think the question to ask is: As Rubyists, what do we want them to
learn? Ruby.
So everything else [installation, editing, execution, debugging]
should be provided in a form familiar to the target audience and
arranged so that it is transparent/smooth. Whatever the solution (IDE
or some other clever idea) it should follow the conventions of the
platform/OS it is being installed/used on.
Absolutely nothing wrong with Shell+Favorite text editor. That's a
route I go often. For me, it is the fastest route to producing code,
because I already know that environment. Eclipse was a frustration to
me, because I needed to be writing code (Java at the time), but
instead I was spending the time learning Eclipse. Eventually, I'll
have to admit the bias that created and give Eclipse another try. :)
However, the combination of tools that I find familiar and comforting,
could be an exercise in frustration for someone else. For instance,
someone very familiar with Eclipse would be much happier learning Ruby
on that platform (provided the platform supports Ruby). It is
frustrating to have X to be your goal, and have to slog through Y and
Z.
I admit, it may not be possible to provide comfortable and familiar
tools to every potential Rubyist. On the other hand, there's no reason
not to try. If a new IDE brings in another segment of the audience,
there's that many more folks using and a few them helping to improve
Ruby. We all benefit from an influx of new ideas from a segment of the
population previously unrepresented.
Okay, I'll stop flogging this horse, I already have a far longer
message than necessary. :)
Iain
Iain Davis
> toolkit. Would wx, gtk or qt be a better fit, and still be X-platform?
> I think we should target Windows, Linux and Mac. Tk caught my eye
> because IDLE is written in it (Tkinter) and makes it a breeze to
> create other desktop type apps in Python.
I've not had experience with Tk, gtk, or qt. I will say I've used
wxWidgetsC++ in the past and I was impressed by it. I don't know if
wxRuby carries with it the same qualities as its C++ counterpart,
though. But this discussion makes me interested in giving it a spin.
:)
Iain
Marnen Laibow-Koser
>> Iain Davis wrote:
>>> That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a
>>> icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute
>>> the ruby code. :)
>
> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> You can do that already. �irb comes standard, and you can use any text
>> editor for files. �If you want to run scripts, "ruby my_script.rb" will
>> do fine. �Where's the problem?
>
> Not quite the same. irb can execute code, but (at least I believe this
> to be true, I'm still new around here...) it isn't an editor.
No, it isn't. You said, though, that you wanted something where you
could type code in and execute it...you got it in irb.
> Yes, you
> can edit code in a text editor, and execute code from the command
> line...but that doesn't fulfill the criteria.
>
Why on earth would you want the editor and interactive environment to be
the same? That's just confusing.
> There's still going to be folks that aren't going to be interested in
> a product where they have to go to the command-line/shell to start
> using the product.
For end-user software, sure. But for programming?!? This is where I
start saying that if they're that lazy, they shouldn't be programming.
> The idea isn't even part of their world-view,
They can learn.
> even
> if they have a vague notion of what a shell is.
>
Anyone who intends to program (outside specialized environments like
Mathematica) needs to get comfortable at the command line. Period.
> I switch back and forth across the GUI/shell dividing line pretty
> frequently, but that sort of thing was a complete mystery to most of
> the people I've worked with in the past.
Were these people programmers? If so, what was the context?
[...]
> My own preference right now for Ruby/Rails is Emacs+shell, but I've
> worked with folks for whom that'd be an exercise in frustration.
If the Emacs part is the frustration, they can find another editor. If
the shell part is the frustration, then they shouldn't be programming.
If they can write arcane Ruby commands, then they should be able to
write arcane shell commands as well.
> Both
> come from an entirely different world than the one they know.
And how would an IDE make it any better? You'd still have to write the
same Ruby code, and you'd still have to run the same shell commands;
it's just that the shell window would be in the IDE instead of being
governed by a separate application. Where's the advantage?
>
> I think the question to ask is: As Rubyists, what do we want them to
> learn? Ruby.
>
> So everything else [installation, editing, execution, debugging]
> should be provided in a form familiar to the target audience
The target audience is multifaceted. Therefore, only the basic tools
should be provided by default, and other tools should be available as
necessary to increase the feeling of familiarity.
> and
> arranged so that it is transparent/smooth.
Ruby installation is plenty transparent. So is installing the editor or
IDE of your choice. You are postulating a nonexistent problem, I think.
> Whatever the solution (IDE
> or some other clever idea) it should follow the conventions of the
> platform/OS it is being installed/used on.
Right. Plenty of editors and IDEs already do that.
>
> Absolutely nothing wrong with Shell+Favorite text editor. That's a
> route I go often. For me, it is the fastest route to producing code,
> because I already know that environment. Eclipse was a frustration to
> me, because I needed to be writing code (Java at the time), but
> instead I was spending the time learning Eclipse.
That's not fair. Any tool has its learning curve (for the record, I
like NetBeans a lot better than Eclipse).
> Eventually, I'll
> have to admit the bias that created and give Eclipse another try. :)
>
> However, the combination of tools that I find familiar and comforting,
> could be an exercise in frustration for someone else.
Then they don't have to use it. Why force the issue by bundling
unnecessary tools?
> For instance,
> someone very familiar with Eclipse would be much happier learning Ruby
> on that platform (provided the platform supports Ruby).
It does. But they'd be making a mistake if they did so. No one should
ever use an IDE to learn a new language, unless (as with Cocoa or some
Java frameworks) the framework being used is so heavy that it requires
the IDE to save the user from boilerplate. This is not the case with
Ruby or Rails.
IDEs are tools, not crutches -- that is, they are for automating things
you do understand, not for preventing you from learning things you
don't. Most of the people who are addicted to IDEs seem to use them as
crutches. This is not a behavior we should encourage in the Ruby
community or anywhere else. (In other words, the people who most want
IDEs are probably the people who most need not to be using them.)
> It is
> frustrating to have X to be your goal, and have to slog through Y and
> Z.
Frustrating, but also life. And Ruby lowers the bar nicely. Why should
I have to learn a particular IDE to learn Ruby?
>
> I admit, it may not be possible to provide comfortable and familiar
> tools to every potential Rubyist. On the other hand, there's no reason
> not to try.
If you want to, go ahead. I think it's interesting, but perhaps a waste
of effort. OTOH, a new project is never a bad thing.
> If a new IDE brings in another segment of the audience,
> there's that many more folks using and a few them helping to improve
> Ruby.
No. The sort of folks we want in the Ruby community are not the sort of
folks who would hold off on using the language because it doesn't come
with its own IDE.
> We all benefit from an influx of new ideas from a segment of the
> population previously unrepresented.
Why are they unrepresented?
>
> Okay, I'll stop flogging this horse, I already have a far longer
> message than necessary. :)
>
> Iain
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
mar...@marnen.org
Sent from my iPhone
Ed Howland
On that score, I am tending to agree with you. I did a small amount of
research into Ruby GUI frameworks. A 2008 survey found Shoes, wxRuby
and Ruby-GNOME2 to be the favorites. (The latter being preferred in
Japan.) Shoes was the favorite overall. But that was 2008.
They each have their pros and cons wrt to portability and native look
and feel. Of the 3, wxRuby and Shoes look good to me, with wxRuby
being more comprehensive, perhaps.
It occurs to me that the IDE (or editor) should be based on a DSL for
flexibility and extensibility. Shoes 3 recently dropped and I think it
fits the bill. Despite the disappearance of _why_, it seems to be
actively being maintained. I think I'll kick its tires some.
David D.
and Rails development. When I was developing on a mac, I used Textmate.
It has been often described as emacs for mac. Needless to say, on
Linux, I use emacs. I use a nice collection of plugins from
http://blog.wyeworks.com/2009/9/11/my-emacs-for-rails that makes it all
a lot cooler. In fact, if I were to ever go back to the mac, I would
more than likely continue using emacs even on the mac.
Auto-complete? Learn the language.