ATC :: Since February 2001

Subscribe to ATC Send e-mail to Rob

I work at Pelco. The opinions expressed here are my own, and neither Pelco nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.

View Rob Fahrni's profile on LinkedIn

Need a Snow Day?

Google
Web rob.crabapples.net



Krusty will code C++ for food.
RSS
Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator
Green Hosting! This site is hosted by Dreamhost.

Monday, December 31, 2007

More on Emacs.Net - [4:46 PM]

Very cool, my post the other day lead to a great comment and a link to more talk on Emacs.Net.

Here's a great article on Dataland, the gentleman that left the great comment with a link, and an article on ZDNet by Mary Jo Foley [via Dataland.]

A cute little monkey.I've been using Microsoft based editors and debuggers for many, many, years. Can you say PWB? If you know what PWB is you're old. I remember the transition from PWB to Visual Studio 1.0. I was pleased to have a GUI based IDE but bummed because it was missing features I had with the console version of the tools. Since then I've been very happy with each release until Visual Studio 2k3 and 2k5, they're really great if you're doing C# or VB.Net, or the like, but for the C++ developer they're a bit slow at times. Don't get me wrong, even with the slowness having a great IDE blows the doors off any Linux solution I've used to date. And yes I mean C/C++ IDE's because it's what I do each and every day.

As for having an Emacs.Net based editor. Ok, I guess. I can't foresee using it because I don't use emacs and don't have a use for it. It's old and arcane, but old developers get used to certain toolsets, and I can't blame them for the desire to create something they'll live in each and every day, but don't expect it to be overly successful, especially if you charge for it. On Linux I'm part of a newer crowd using KDevelop and I like it. Then again, who knows, they may create something so compelling I won't be able to resist it! If it is an IDE I be more apt to use it, I like having an integrated debugger.

Oh, yeah, one other thing. I don't think Visual Studio is built as a .NET program. I think it uses .NET components but I'd be shocked if it were 100%, or even 50%, .NET. Microsoft doesn't like to throw out codebases.

One more thing. I worked with a fella that went to work for the Visual Studio team at one point and hated it. It was so focused on adding features for .Net developers and fit made him sick. The money was coming in from C++ and Visual Basic Classic and they were spending tons of time writing code for the C# developer.

Labels: , ,


Click here for a permalink to this entry. comment