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

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Allan Wegan wrote:
> >> 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 So i should not call Emacs outdated because that is too much an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?

Archaic would mean the same - at least it would underscore what certainly seems to be your opinion that "command line" editors belong to the past. I remain curious as to your justification for that. Not in terms of any flaming: perhaps there are other tools or pieces of advice for OCaml that may help.

> By the way i did not even called the users outdated - just the IDE.

As a speaker of one language only, I will always veer towards the benefit of the doubt towards anyone who speaks more than one language, but when you say "it's 2016 and other communities/languages are on GUIs" you are addressing users as well as tools!

> Using outdated stuff is very popular by the youngsters where i live.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.

This definitely isn't a flame-war (indeed, your thread has caused me to discover that I can add a Vim plugin to Visual Studio next time I have to use it, so I learned something too!). I have no desire to convince you to use either Vim or Emacs, the problem is your strong assertion that a GUI IDE is superior to those tools, but you don't mention what it is about a GUI IDE (say Visual Studio) that you really need which no "command line editor"-based IDE can provide.

> 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.

I, for a limited example, have used Visual Studio for more than 20 years; I don't hate it. I have used ML for 15 years and Vim for fractionally less than that. In my OCaml development, I have never missed something from Visual Studio so much that I wished I could code OCaml using it (that's not strictly true - but Merlin solved that a while ago). For me personally, I find the code editor in Visual Studio a pathetic imitation of a text editor (to put it mischievously) - but then perhaps I can use a plugin to deal with that, as apparently someone at Microsoft has felt the same way too ;o)

> > 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.

Right, so apart from "selling OCaml better", what would/should it do? What's missing? It's not about trying to convince you to use an editor you don't want, it's just whether the tools you'd want to use as part of an IDE are only available in them or, more importantly, whether some tool you would use in the graphical IDE of your choice really isn't that important for OCaml.

> >> 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).

I'm sure you give the F# and F* guys at Microsoft Research a chuckle...!


David