141–150 of 196 posts
I'm sorry, but I use color to locate things. This, to me, is a disaster. If this isn't a problem for other people, fine, but it's a problem to me. A better solution would have been to use less color and desaturated tones rather than simply going to full on black and white, which serves only to rob the IDE of potential visual cues. This is like using a cannon to kill a bird. Just because they overcolorized VS2010 for…
Interesting thing about VS and Xcode is that they do not really try to compete with somebody or fight for attention. Both Windows and Mac/iOS developers would use less useful tools if they still let them make products for the popular platforms. JetBrains, Borland and others are fighting for attention and developers' love. They must try really-really hard to make people choose an alternative to the official tools. So…
These IDEs have an almost identical design language. I am at home in any of them and picking up new ones is pretty straightforward.
XCode 4 on the other hand has a completely different design language, and one that is limited in what it can do, but verbose in achieving it.
Limited, for example, because while I have a 17" MBP and a 23" monitor, I can't have the Project Navigator open at the same time as the Error Navigator. I can't view code and disassembly. I can't have code side-by-side in a split view.
Verbose, for example, because when editing a Scheme, it opens a custom, modal dialog, and if I press "Manage Schemes..." it rolls up and then rolls down another custom, modal dialog. If I then hit "+" it opens another modal dialog on top of my modal dialog. I thought we got rid of this kind of shit with VB6.
I've built a complicated IDE or two, and every time there was a custom, modal dialog, it was because we were rushed for time. Good non-modal design requires thought and effort. Flexible UI requires thought and effort. A simple, powerful design language requires thought and effort.
I would put money on XCode 4 not so much being "designed" as "rushed". Or perhaps "designed with lofty goals" - and one of those being "not like any other IDE, so that programmers learning on XCode will be completely thrown by any other tool".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will argue, as I don't know who the submitter is, or even what this site is. HackerNews I think? I just got here via a Twitter post. So I have nothing to lose. If you're using Excel for automated code generation, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG Surely there are better tools out there for the task.
That's really funny partner. Using Excel for generating code fragments that can be cut and pasted into your compiler is powerful and fast. Nothing wrong with it. But, go ahead and don't. I love compete with others doing thing less efficiently. Makes me smile.
This has a number of advantages:
- you don't need to change your code every time the data changes.
- you can version the data and the code seperately within your source control management system.
- you don't need to write any VBA. (always a winner, that one)
- current developers will be able to understand and change the code without being forced to use the macro you developed, or have it explained to them.
- future developers will be able to understand where all the code came from, and be able to effectively understand and change it.
- you will be less affected by changes to future versions of Excel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not experiment and try to be better at what you do? Herein lies the problem. The term "better" is most definitely subjective. Not to pic on Xcode, but this is a prime example of focusing too much on making a consumer appliance rather than a professional tool. Like I said: I don't want iTunes, I want a kick-ass IDE. I'm in the middle of a project that has, quite literally, thousands of assets to manage (images,…
The key was "try". Xcode is far from being focused on "consumers" and they are trying hard to make a kick-ass IDE. It could be a different definition of "kick-ass" from yours, that's fine. Anyway, I emphasize this again: it's not a question if the actual result is better or worse, it's a complex question because there are thousands of people to evaluate it. The question is why not to experiment more where you have mo…
I can only conclude that you have absolutely no concrete experience of the state of other tools and languages. Eclipse, IntelliJ and Visual Studio with Resharper are lightyears ahead of XCode 4 when it comes to assisted programming.
Here's the clue: all of these tools expose the code DOM to tool writers. Even if Intellij didn't have over 100 different ways to refactor code, I could write my own. Fuck, I wrote a Resharper plugin that loaded javascript file to manipulate the dom and pass it to StringTemplate [1] The javascript file then decides based on what is at the cursor which templates to display when the user hits Alt-Enter. Think for a minute about what has to happen under the hood for that to happen. Then think what else is possible. Then realize that its not there in XCode 4.
The quick launch feature alone is reason enough to upgrade. Every program should have this!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you looking at the same table I am looking at? All major compilers except MSVC 'mostly' support C99...
Yes I am. Have you validated what 'mostly' means? Let me tell you that each compiler manufacturer has a different dictionary to look up the meaning of 'mostly'. If a standard is not 100% implemented across compilers, no one can be sure to use it if portability is a concern. This is exactly like the time where most databases 'mostly' implemented the SQL '92 standard, and then the code had to be full with DB specific w…
Have you? Real question - I'd be very interested in that.
The list of (allegedly) fully compliant compilers is not very impressive (IBM, PGI, Sun), but in practice, you're aiming at C99 support to the level of GCC, which will get you - in addition to GCC and its (supposedly) drop-in replacement Clang - AMD and Intel (I think ICC has C99 support to GCC level, but there are probably discrepancies in the feature sets)...
I came shockingly close to projectile vomiting when I read the header "The New Developer Experience". My experience of developing is quite similar regardless of the tools I use. And I've been developing for years on a variety of toolkits including VS. A slick mobile UI styled facelift on their signature overweight IDE isn't going to radically change the developer's experience. (Also, who else looked at Metro and ICS'…
I've been using Metro on a Samsung Series 7 Slate as my main PC/laptop/tablet for a couple of months now and don't quite see OLPC in there. But then, I've not used XO. FWIW I love Metro. The little UI touches like changing the volume or brightness make Windows 7 feel somehow... inadequate. As for VS - yup, 2010 was slow. I actually went back to 2008 because even the Express editions were too slow on my little Vaio P-…
Can you elaborate on that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I am. Have you validated what 'mostly' means? Let me tell you that each compiler manufacturer has a different dictionary to look up the meaning of 'mostly'. If a standard is not 100% implemented across compilers, no one can be sure to use it if portability is a concern. This is exactly like the time where most databases 'mostly' implemented the SQL '92 standard, and then the code had to be full with DB specific w…
> Have you validated what 'mostly' means? Have you? Real question - I'd be very interested in that. The list of (allegedly) fully compliant compilers is not very impressive (IBM, PGI, Sun), but in practice, you're aiming at C99 support to the level of GCC, which will get you - in addition to GCC and its (supposedly) drop-in replacement Clang - AMD and Intel (I think ICC has C99 support to GCC level, but there are pro…
So it might be not that easy for certain companies to use your suggestion.
As far for what 'mostly' means. I have been coding since the K&R days, so I am aware that even when things are supposed to be 100% the same among C compilers, reality speaks otherwise.