Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.uoregon.edu!cliffs.rs.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.60.0.2!nntp.snet.net!news.snet.net!usenet
From: "Joseph M. O'Connor" <joseph.m.oconner@1.1.1.1>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: The value of a GUI IDE
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 18:57:08 -0400
Organization: "SNET dial access service"
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <338CB844.6768@1.1.1.1>
Reply-To: joseph.m.oconner@1.1.1.1
NNTP-Posting-Host: nwhn02-sh9-port3.snet.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:41798
I recently posted a message on this newsgroup on the merits of a GUI IDE
of
which I consider Borland Delphi to be a prime example. I received a
reply
from someone who didn't identify himself and who had an invalid email
address, so I thought I'd post the reply I intended for him here.
> > As far as I can see, an IDE like those mentioned above would certainly
> > be nice to have on a Unix platform, only that no one has gotten around
> > to developing them. I certainly don't mean to imply that developing
> > them
> > is a trivial undertaking (it's obviously an enormous one) or that
> > there
> > is nobody who works on Unix as a development platform who is up to the
> > task; it's just one of those things that no one has gotten around to
> > yet.
> >
> Guess why. Nobody wants them since the usual Unix environment (shell,
> editors, debuggers, /usr/bin/* or even emacs with its bazillions of modes)
> is far superior to a DOS IDE. I worked with both (I've been programming
> with Borlame IDEs since Turbo Pascal 3.0, saw Turbo C 1.0 up to BCPP 3.x.
> I never regretted that there isn't such a thing as a Borland IDE under Unix
> (which is untrue, there is a IDE clone called wpe/xwpe which really looks
> and feels like the Borland DOS IDE but it is so ridiculous when compared
> to real Unix tools). I prefer plain vi and /usr/bin/* any day over a
> windowy IDE and many others do, too.
I've never heard of wpe/xwpe. My thanks, it was one of the answers
that my colleague and I were looking for. BTW, this thread of
discussion started when he posted a question about whether there
were any GUIs similar in nature to Borland's products. For this,
he was flamed slightly (he managed to escape with minor injuries ;)
).
First of all, I'd like to clarify my argument by stating that
I do NOT think a properly designed IDE/GUI would replace
manual coding or a command-line interface; it should give
additional tools to the programmer; not take away ones that
already have proven themselves. The usual argument that I
hear against an IDE or GUI interface is that it tends to get
in the way of a knowledgeable individual; I don't believe
it necessarily has to be true (Regrettably, it sometimes
is).
I think you actually raise a valid point in comparing the weak-
nesses of Borland's earlier IDEs in overall power to Unix comm-
and line tools. For one thing, the editor was a pain in the butt
to use. I often found myself using the IDE for debugging but
"escaping" to use an editor I liked better (like Kedit).
However, I think that the arguments against using IDEs,
specifically ones with a component-oriented, GUI front.end
such as Delphi or C++ Builder (which is what we were mainly
interested in) aren't very strong, to say the least. IMHO,
these IDEs come close to being an order of magnitude more
powerful than their predecessors. My own project development
times (pre vs. post Delphi) certainly show evidence of this
assertion.
As further evidence of the power of a component-oriented IDE,
I would also point out the success of Visual Basic as a
product. Thia is in spite of some rather serious shortcomings
with the language itself.
In more "conventional" enwironments, a large percentage of
the development effort in a project goes simply towards
crafting a suitable front-end. Can you honestly tell me
that it's better to create a resource file for a dialog
box manually using a tool such as vi rather than creating
it visually from a component palette? If so, there's
really nothing more I can say on this matter.
This visually-oriented programming does not replace
conventional programming; nor was it intended to -
programming the components themselves tends to be a
nonvisual process. It is just a very powerful supplement
to conventional programming.
Anyway, that's all I have to say for now on this subject.
Thanks again for replying to my post (it was informative).
JO
_