do we need it all in on utility? yes please! [LWN.net]

do we need it all in on utility? yes please!

Posted Jun 2, 2006 17:06 UTC (Fri) by carcassonne (guest, #31569)
In reply to: do we need it all in on utility? yes please! by micampe
Parent article: GNU grep's new features (Linux.com)

In short, it builds a model of your code, to provide smart completion suggestions, real-time error checking, refactoring and more.

I just got the cedet kit for emacs and although I've not had the time to configure it yet, it provides (the semantic part of it) 'intellisense' completion (that is, based on the code, not the regular completion emacs has based on what you type).

And it does not seem to add any more memory use to emacs.

For refactoring, there's xref for emacs, but that's a commercial product.

As for real-time error checking, I dunno. I guess I'd prefer the actual compiler to check this out. It's pretty good at that.

to post comments

do we need it all in on utility? yes please!

Posted Jun 2, 2006 22:08 UTC (Fri) by micampe (guest, #4384) [Link] (1 responses)

I just got the cedet kit for emacs and although I've not had the time to configure it yet, it provides (the semantic part of it) 'intellisense' completion (that is, based on the code, not the regular completion emacs has based on what you type).

There's more than just intellisense. Intellisense is so 90s.

If that does it for you, fine by me, but I prefer using a tool with an user interface designed in this century, doesn't require configuration to be used and three years to master (and I still doubt that tool can be considered on par with Eclipse JDT).

As for real-time error checking, I dunno. I guess I'd prefer the actual compiler to check this out. It's pretty good at that.

It is the actual compiler doing that.

Eclipse (like most other IDEs) is much more powerful than a text editor launching a compiler.

do we need it all in on utility? yes please!

Posted Jun 8, 2006 7:38 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

"Intellisense is so 90s."

Likewise, I guess writing code that doesn't assume infinite memory and CPU cycles and actually takes care to conserve its resource usage is so 80s...

"I prefer using a tool with an user interface designed in this century"

Whereas a goodly number of developers prefer using a tool whose UI has been under constant development for 20 years and is customisable to a degree where it works with their muscle memory. Good engineering simply doesn't become obsolete, and I'd rather have an intuitive command set than a pretty picture any day.