Re: [Caml-list] IDE like PyCharm - Results

[Kakadu <kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com>]

I probably should stop procrastinating and port merlin to Qt Creator.....

2016-05-11 14:19 GMT+03:00 Allan Wegan <allanwegan@allanwegan.de>:
> <snip rant>
>
>>> Vim and Emacs are commandline editors - we got 2016 and IDEs for
>>> other languages evolved to be GUI-driven out there.
>>
>> Actually, IDEs for other languages evolved to be GUIs more than 20
>> years ago, having recently had the "pleasure" of reinstalling
>> Microsoft Visual C++ 4.
>
>> So calling Vim and Emacs users dated may not be a route to getting
>> advice (belligerent maybe...)
>
> So i should not call Emacs outdated because that is too much an
> understatement? English is not my first language - would "archaic" be
> more appropriate?
>
> By the way i did not even called the users outdated - just the IDE.
> Using outdated stuff is very popular by the youngsters where i live. We
> call them hipsters - and they call it vintage. Nothing wrong with that.
> I am not against using old Vectrex consoles and Emacs - i just do not
> use it myself. And i really try to ensure, that everyone who did not get
> the message the first time will have an increasing chance to get it in
> each iteration of the
> use-Emacs-its-great--nope-want-a-GUI-driven-solution cycle. That
> drastically increases the possibility, that even the one without any
> reading skill will get it at some point. He will sudeenly realize, that
> i am obviously not interested in using Emacs and therefore trying to
> advertise it again and again is just a waste of time.
>
> In hindsight i think i should have started with a flamewar against Emacs
> - that would have gotten the message around much faster. But i don't
> even hate Emacs - i just don't want to use it and therefore will not use it.
>
> And regarding getting advice - i got it from both - Emacs users and
> non-Emacs users. I am actually pretty satisfied as i also got results my
> internet search did not uncover. Sublime is really good. And OCamlEditor
> seems to be worth some more tries too (just have to read more about
> OCaml package management first).
>
>> If you'd like to whip up some funds for a port, I'm sure the
>> community would be grateful.
>
> Of course i would like to do that - i guess most here would. And also as
> most do, i have to pay my rent and food and then there is nothing left
> to suppoort all the good things we all would like to support.
>
>> You are a priori assuming that all of us Vim and Emacs users have
>> never seen or used Visual Studio (or Eclipse before).
>
> Nope - actually i asummed that you all know it and hate it for some
> unknown reason (as it is the exact opposite of Emacs). As i really like
> it, i used it as an Example for the almost perfect IDE i would wish to
> have for OCaml. Just to be sure that everyone knows what i am searching for.
>
>> A better tack might be to name a feature of your favourite GUI IDE
>> which you perceive as lacking in our terribly dated "command line"
>> editors (I personally regard gVim as a GUI editor, the clue being in
>> the 'g'). There's a chance it's on a wish-list; there's a chance
>> there's a perfectly reasonable other way...
>
> The thing about software that is designed to be GUI-based from the start
> is, that it really looks and feels like GUI-based. It does not look and
> feel like terminal-based software that someone put into a window and
> attached a toolbar to. I do not know if that difference is something i
> really can describe good enough to get the point across - but it is the
> same reason why Microsoft and Apple are "worth" billions of dollars on
> the stock market. Its all about usability for the people who like
> well-designed GUIs. That GUIs really sell well. There also are complete
> Operating systems - and even hardware in case of Apple - below that
> GUIs. But they are not the things that sell the product.
> I really like GUIs for a lot of Tasks - including image editing and
> coding. I also always got some terminal open too - but not for image
> editing or coding.
>
>>> Too bad they did their own .Net-based functional
>>> language instead of adopting OCaml...
>>
>> Although they did use OCaml as a starting point for that language.
>
> They grabbed something from here and there and then soaked it in their
> disgusting .Net sauce (they instantly got a huge standard library and
> community that way but i want the real thing).
>
>
>
> --
> Allan Wegan
> <http://www.allanwegan.de/>
> Jabber: allanwegan@ffnord.net
>  OTR-Fingerprint: E4DCAA40 4859428E B3912896 F2498604 8CAA126F
> Jabber: allanwegan@jabber.ccc.de
>  OTR-Fingerprint: A1AAA1B9 C067F988 4A424D33 98343469 29164587
> ICQ: 209459114
>  OTR-Fingerprint: 71DE5B5E 67D6D758 A93BF1CE 7DA06625 205AC6EC
>