What IDE are you using?

[typingcat]

First of all, I'm an Asian and I need to input Japanese, Korean and so
on. I've tried many PHP IDEs today, but almost non of them supported
Unicode (UTF-8) file.

I've found that the only Unicode support IDEs are DreamWeaver 8 and
Zend PHP Studio.

DreamWeaver provides full support for Unicode. However, DreamWeaver is
a web editor rather than a PHP IDE. It only supports basic IntelliSense
(or code completion) and doesn't have anything like a class view.

Zend PHP Studio supports Unicode but have many problems. It couldn't
display Korean when I set a Japanese font for the editor, and couldn't
display Japanese when I set a Korean font for the editor. The most
obvious problem is it's too slow. It provides really good support for
coding like class view, debugging and advanced IntelliSense, but it's
too slow for my PC.

I think you're PHP professinals. What do you use for PHP development?
I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 02:55:
Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation *, not
*doucmentation* ...

But either way, wading through documentation to find something when you
could just press a button???

But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!

And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish, make
it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.

Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Oli Filth]

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 02:55:
Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation *, not
*doucmentation* ...

But either way, wading through documentation to find something when
you could just press a button???

But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!

What bearing does that have on anything?

And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish, make
it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.

Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!

Javadocs, for instance, are even easier to create!
--
Oli

[Jerry Stuckle]

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:

But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!

What bearing does that have on anything?

If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
names parameters and return values can be documented

Of course, if you don't design the application and fly by the seat of
your pants, that's another story.

And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish,
make it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.

Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!

Javadocs, for instance, are even easier to create!

But not as easy to search.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Oli Filth]

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 27/10/2005 00:09:

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:

But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!

What bearing does that have on anything?

If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
names parameters and return values can be documented

Yes... and? I don't understand how that follows on from anything I said...

Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to
create!

Javadocs, for instance, are even easier to create!

But not as easy to search.

With a decent Java IDE, they are - you press F1 (or Ctrl+F1, or
whatever), and you land straight on the documentation of the
class/method/variable in question.

--
Oli

[Jerry Stuckle]

Oli Filth wrote:

If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
names parameters and return values can be documented

Yes... and? I don't understand how that follows on from anything I said...

Check back through your messages. You indicated one of the best reasons
to use an IDE is for the autocompletion (or hints) for function. I'm
saying this is bogus - proper documentation replaces the need.


With a decent Java IDE, they are - you press F1 (or Ctrl+F1, or
whatever), and you land straight on the documentation of the
class/method/variable in question.

Ah, another IDE - Java this time!

With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE! And BTW - this is a PHP
newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Andrew DeFaria]

Oli Filth wrote:

Andrew DeFaria said the following on 26/10/2005 00:41:

Oli Filth wrote:

Andrew DeFaria said the following on 25/10/2005 19:07:

Oli Filth wrote:

> Whether the compiler and linker are built into an IDE or stand-alone,

Huh? What are you talking about? What compiler/linkers are built
into which IDEs? I'm curious...

Integrated, whatever, I think you knew what I meant...
No I didn't. That's why I started off with "Huh?" quickly followed by
"What are you talking about?". Those are questions indicating that I
did not know what you meant - and I still don't! I can't help it if
you have failed, once again, to clearly convey your meaning. Perhaps
you should take a stab at doing so because such unknowns are really
getting tiresome.

I assumed that the "Huh? what are you talking about ... I'm curious"
was newsgroup sarcasm.

Wrong assumption on your part. If you are confused you could always ask
questions.
I was referring to, for instance, the Microsoft compiler(s) that comes
with Visual Studio, is run by default, and whose input (switches,
etc.) and output (compiler error messages) are integrated into the
fabric of the IDE. And yes, I do know that one can, if one wants to,
run the MS compiler completely independently, from command-line.
You have a strange way of looking at the phrase "built in". In any
event, I'm curious, as I don't use monolithic IDEs such as Visual
Studio, how exactly do you suck out their concept of a project into a
say a makefile such that you can build the whole application or system
via a simple command or script. MS VS may have this but I believe other
monolithic IDEs (e.g. Powerbuilder) don't.
I would have thought that it was obvious that that was what I was
referring to, considering we're talking about being locked into
monolithic IDEs. My apologies that it wasn't.
Apology accepted.

You will, BTW, need the interpreter for any of PHP, Perl, etc.
locally installed.

Well, not strictly necessary to make code modification.

Again you are being purposely vague here. What do you mean not
strictly necessary to make code modifications?! ?

Exactly that - you don't *need* a local interpreter to make
modifications to, for instance, PHP code. True, it's may be somewhat
brave to make code changes without testing them, but in principle it's
obviously possible.

Logical disconnect here again. You never make changes with the
interpreter - you make them with an editor. Hence my confusion about
your statement. You need an interpreter to run the code. You need the
compiler/linker to compile and link non interpreted code. To me these
are a given. What you don't need is a monolithic IDE and if you are
crippled by the fact that you cannot work effectively, efficiently or
whatever without your IDE locally installed then you effectively have a
handicap.

Go ahead and make a code modification without PHP, Perl or whatever
locally installed. Let me know how that works out for you and how it
even runs then!

Many moons ago, this particular point originated at someone saying
that if, in a crisis, he realised some part of his (PHP) application
was screwing up, he could access the code from anywhere, make the
change, and re-upload it. So even if one does want to test it (which
one obviously does), you still don't *need* a local interpreter.

By "local interpreter" I was referring to an interpreter on the box that
runs the code.
Which brings me back to my original point - scripts are (usually)
literally just files full of text - no intermediate steps or tools are
required between changing the source code, and that change being
operational.

So the point of having the necessary compiler/linker or interpreter
is moot. The point is, that you can indeed operate without an IDE
except in the rare case were the compiler/linker/interpreter,
whatever is actually built into the IDE (in fact I'd say none)

Hmm, perhaps you're right on this one.
Ah so then you admit that compilers/linkers/interpreters are not
build into IDEs. Good.

Was referring to the paragraph as a whole - not that individual
statement...

Now you have me totally confused. The point of the paragraph was to
enlighten you to the fact that interpreters like PHP are *not* build
into IDEs rather they are separate entities - indeed separate
executables that do not require nor use an IDE at all. Do you or do you
not agree with that statement?

> It kind of goes back to the "pain in the arse" argument. I *could*
> write an entire application in Notepad/XEmacs/generic-text-editor,

Of course you could. Many, many do already. In fact, as this whole
argument has been about, many prefer it that way and yes indeed
many are more productive that way!

I gathered that, and I'm trying to find out how/why...

How about the things already mentioned like not being slowed down by
large monolithic applications that have cutesy ways of telling you
what to do while lacking in the real day to day functionality of a
good editor.

I beg to disagree that an IDE "tells me what to do" - certainly it
assists me in doing certain things, or does certain tedious
house-keeping for me, but that's the whole point of a tool.

It is demonstrably telling you what to do! It is telling you what the
function you are typing in is when it assists you with the function
prototype. Now you are indeed free to ignore it's suggestion but it is
obviously telling you what it thinks you are doing at this point.
Which functionality specifically does a "good editor" give you that
isn't available in your average "good IDE"?
Being able to edit multiple different languages at the same time and
having the editor be cognizant of the different languages. Being able to
mark sections of code and it knowing how to comment it out with a single
command (and again be cognizant of multiple languages). Being able to
edit files remotely via ftp or ssh on any server in the world. Being
able to dynamically figure out and complete just about anything - not
just function prototypes. Being able to record complex commands and play
them back with ease - even repeatedly. Being able to edit huge files, be
they code or data or even binary (ever patch an executable directly with
that IDE? XEmacs can!). Being able to compile directly from the editor,
trace the errors back to the source, etc. Being able to run shell
commands in the editor capturing and piping the output so as to be able
to fill in files or code directly. Being able to interact with version
control to check out and in files with ease. Being able to extend the
editor in any way I choose using a flexible and AI like language called
lisp. Etc. etc. Sure some IDEs do some of this. Some others do other
parts of this. But rarely does one IDE do all of it. Not having to learn
a whole new way of doing things, different keystrokes, different
concepts, etc. and repeat that for every IDE for every language that I use.
You gave the FTP example elsewhere in this thread - not only can MS VS
manage a web project over FTP, but the Windows abstraction of the file
system allows you to access remote files like they were local anyway.
Really? So I can go into MS VS at work and then poke through the
firewall to edit machines on my Linux box at home through DSL or some
random box in England? Somehow I don't think I could...
(At this point, you're probably thinking that I'm some crazed hardcode
MS advocate! I'm not, it's just that in my day to day life, I happen
to use their OS and their IDE 99% of the time).
Oh I use Windows too. I don't use MS VS. I don't code in MS C++. I don't
code in Visual Basic either (Actually I did do some VB stuff - VB script
stuff - but used XEmacs to do it. MS VS VB is all oriented to creating
Windows GUI programs, but the task at hand was not to produce a GUI
program rather a script. BTW MS VS took up some 500 - 1 gig of my hard
drive! What a waste to write a 100 line VB script! And please refresh my
memory - exactly how much $$$ does one need to put out for MS VS?
Thought so...)

By having to spend your time installing, updating, patching,
configuring various IDEs for your various languages instead of
spending time coding

You never have to install/update/patch all the individual components
and plug-ins in your tool set?

Ah, actually, well - NO! What's your point! XEmacs already handles it
out of the box, is free, and powerful. Cygwin and bash, Perl, PHP, etc
(or Linux etc) is also free, has a great set of tools that are right at
your finger tips. I did have to go out and find visual-basic-mode.el
because that didn't come as default with XEmacs. 30 seconds tops to get
that file, save it then load it. I'm done. Did I have to install Perl or
PHP? Well yes. But so do you - even if you don't use an IDE.

The point is an IDE is way too big and too focused on one language
whereas I use many languages. I do not, therefore, wish to install
multiple IDEs. And the chances are great that each IDE will do things
their own way and slightly differently. One IDE is enough to learn (in
fact I'd say most people use 20% of the functionality of their IDEs -
that old 80/20 rule) never mind 4 or 5 of them! And inevitably there'll
be updates and patches and functionality changes and problems. Why would
I want to deal with 4 or 5 headaches! Similarly I don't install AIM and
MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger and then have to deal with 3 applications
doing the same thing, slightly differently, just because I want to talk
to people on those different networks. Instead I install Trillian which
talks to all of them. IOW Economy of my administration overhead.

Contrast that to something like XEmacs, which has a long history and is
really quite stable.

By spending time having to learn how to do a simple task from your
old editor in this new IDE editor and finding out it just can't do
it. You know, stuff like that...

See further down...

The biggest single reason I love an IDE that "understand s" the
language? Project navigation. A project with 100 classes split over
an equally large number of source/header files, in a generic text
editor, if I wanted to look up the the implementation of X::Foo(),
I'd either have to remember that Class X is defined somewhere in
source file Y, then search that file (semi)manually, or do a global
search for "Foo()" and wade through the results. In an IDE, I click
on X in class-view, then click on Foo(), and I'm straight there (in
VS, I press F12 when the caret is on a call to X::Foo(), the effect
is the same).

See tags...

Biggest second reason - click on a compiler error message, and it
jumps to the code in question, saves an inordinate amount of time. I
don't actually care that the error is on Line 362 in foo.cpp, I just
need to see the relevant code, NOW.

That's funny because XEmacs does that already...

As they say, "you learn something new every day". I've barely ever
used XEmacs, so I didn't know it was capable of doing these things.

This tags facility, I get the impression from some brief Googling that
the tags database has to be manually refreshed?

Generally the compilers are capable of generating the tags therefore
it's refreshed as a by product of a build. Then again I rarely used tags
as I have rarely been doing 3rd generation programming. Mostly now I use
Perl and PHP.

BTW - "Arse" is the English spelling and pronunciation - when I say
"English" I mean the English that they speak in England ;)

Are we in England?

Well, at least one of us is!

I"m sorry to hear that! ;-)

Those English dude are so funny. I'm curious, is it actually
pronounced "ass" like us yanks or is it pronounced "are esss"?

Mostly like your phonetic representation. Although many people here
have been "corrupted" by the influx of American culture via TV and
films, and assume that "ass" is the way forward...

That it is... That it is... I will never get used to things like colour
and cheques. For a giggle you should read: Plan for Improvement of
English Spelling
<https://defaria.com/Jokes/Plan4Improvemen tOfEnglishSpell ing.php>

> The tools offered by the IDE greatly increase my productivity,

Great! Then you use them! But do not tell everybody else to use them.

I never did at any point in this discussion!

Aren't you putting forth the concept that if you are in a large
project then you gotta be using an IDE or you're a fool? Sorry dude
but that's specifically saying to most people that you should use
this as most people do not like to be thought of as a fool...

I've never said that or implied that at any point (well I hope I
haven't) - that was the other guy Ramon...

Oh. OK. So sorry. My mistake.

Just offering my views, and attempting to learn the reasoning behind
the alternate view/methodology. Believe it or not, I'm genuinely
interested in what you (and others) have to say and why you do
things the way you do.

We've said much already. Do you just not get it or do you simply
disagree with it? I'll state again: It'd be nice to have function
name completion, documentation, browsing, etc. I don't often delve
into large class hierarchies of objects with thousands of methods,
calls and tons of complexity. I've managed to do OK. I would like
such functionality. *HOWEVER*... I will not trade an editor that I
find much utility in for an IDE editor *where I lose a lot of the
basic functionality I've come to know and expect* and have to do all
kinds of learning *for one specific language of which I'm only in
part of my workday* desktop up and then have to do the same thing for
the next language/IDE again and again. I also like the ability to be
able to productive without having to have a monolithic IDE
application installed on every machine I do work on. I like small,
well engineered tools that do a small job well that I can string
together over a monolithic monstrosity that does some things well and
others not so good. I like to be able to log into a machine via a
command line and still be able to churn out work without having to
have a whole gui running before I can do anything. This allows me to
create scripts to get 10's to 100's of machines churning out
productive work.

OK, now I'm getting somewhere - you've put forth specific reasons for
why (for you, at least) a dedicated IDE is a pain in some ways. (Up
until now you've mostly been challenging my points without actually
offering reasons for the alternative).

The points you make are good - however for me they mostly don't apply.
It's very rare that I work on a machine that isn't my own (at work,
even if I do, the same IDEs are usually already installed or easily
accessible). If I did, yes of course I'd miss the features of my IDE,
I freely admit, but I'd like to think that I'm competent enough to be
able to deal with it.

As a system administrator I have gone through efforts to make my
window's title the $CWD so I can have the prompt be the name of the
machine I'm working on! When I was at HP in the Language Lab we had some
435 machines. I received root mail from about 100 of them as I was the
lab administrator. Of paramount importance to me when I was about to
type in a reboot command was exactly which machine am I rebooting now!
We live in different worlds my friend.

If I was a "dedicated, all I do is work on this one monolithic PHP
application, there are tons of objects and methods that I deal with day
in and day out, I only work on my machine and push stuff up to other
machines where they run my code or test my code" I'd probably use a PHP
oriented editor (actually I probably wouldn't because I already know
XEmacs and that works fine for me - I'd get additional XEmacs packages
to handle what the IDE give you so I can continue to work in XEmacs).
But my work is different. I not only work in several scripting languages
but I write web pages too and edit all kinds of other language oriented
or structured data files all the time.
The biggest single point I agree with wholeheartedly is the lack of
uniformity amongst IDEs (some are unavoidable, of course, due to
language differences).
That's funny. XEmacs does a pretty good job dealing with that issue. I
do admit that in the different modes there are different commands - but
all of the basic movement, editing, day to day stuff is largely the same...
I wish there was an IDE designed on a similar principle to XEmacs,
(i.e. easily extendible for any language/platform/package), but still
offering scope for all the "cool" proprietary/language-specific
features. If there was, and it was good, I'd drop MS VS, JBuilder,
etc. in a second (possibly).
Personally, and I've often thought of this, I'd like to make to subclass
the text edit widget such that I could usurp all text edit widgets that
the windowing system is using and all of them would use Emacs key
bindings and have the ability to talk to the underlying emacsserver
process. Then I could say in this Thunderbird Compose window simply C-x
i /an****@defaria. com:/some/path/to/a/file.txt and insert it right here,
or whatever. But alas, while this might be doable under X Windows I
wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how to do that to a Windows machine...

I thought, with my brief exposure to MS VS, that it at least attempted
to accommodate several languages like C++, VB and C#.
Maybe there is such a thing already, I don't know...
Actually, I believe with a little work you could probably find packages
to have a relatively similar set of "cool tools" in XEmacs and/or write
your own. Problem is you have to learn to code in lisp (and I'm not very
good at that either).

Ah again, you miscommunicated .

Yup! Is it clearer now?

Yes but why do we have to hash such things out? Can't you endeavor to
be clear in the first place?

Whilst "think before you type" is a virtue I attempt to adhere to,
doesn't *always* work in practice.

Well I've had the same problem and still do on occasion. But I actively
worked on it. Another concept I employ (usually) is the silly and stupid
concept of checking what I typed *before* I hit the send button. I'll do
it here to. After I'm done typing in what I wanted to say I go back and
read it all. I change those mistakes of "your" but meant "you're", etc.
Some times I add stuff. Sometimes I reword stuff. Sometime I check it
again. I find it useful.

I do this because of time when I used to put type out crap and hit send
and after a few people pointed out the errors in my communication I
actually felt ashamed and made an effort to improve that. I truly feel
that the way you communicate says something about you - you make an
impression - and I want to make a good impression. I also spell check my
work. These are all things that many people, especially on the Internet,
kinda even bad mouth. Fine. But I can't help but look at such people as
less intelligent. And it's clear to me that they don't mind if I (and
others) do.

You missed the point I was trying to make, I think.

If you know the exact nuances of command-line C compilation and
building, utilising every single feature that makefiles afford,
that's great.

BTW I didn't claim that I did.

I know - Hypothetical "You" in the general sense.

Oh. OK. Sorry. Thought you mean me..

How do you perform automated nightly building of these large and
vastly different applications of an organization where X uses MS VS
and Y use Borland and Z uses Powerbuilder or some other such crap,
late at night with nobody else around on some server in the back
room somewhere. What do you install all of the IDEs that everybody
prefers because you cannot build their apps without their specific
IDE, or specific version of IDE? And how to you, in an automated
fashion, with nobody there, fire up those IDEs and push buttons
from a build script? Again, I'm curious...

You don't need to build it on every single person's machine/IDE, do
you?

Actually yes I do - sorta. In my capacity I often serve as
build/release engineer. And yes I do have to build everybody else's
code. Otherwise it doesn't get out the door. And no I don't come in
at 2 Am and log onto somebody's desktop to fire up their IDE to push
a button to build their piece of the software...

Again, a hypothetical "you".

There are many of us who do and we really don't appreciate it when your
choice of IDE and your method of building does not easily fit into an
automated way of building large quantities of software which is how it
usually, eventually needs to happen in any large organization.
But maybe I'm missing something, why would "building everyone else's
code" ever involve firing up all their machines?
Case in point: At a previous client I was asked to look into automating
the build process. This particular project used Powerbuilder. Not only
did I have to install Powerbuilder but the only way I could build was by
firing up the IDE and selecting the right project file and pushing the
build button. The lead engineer of the project knew of no other way to
build the software!

Then we found that it did have a command line scripting language but
nobody ever used that. I tried to reproduce the build from that
scripting language. There were problems. New versions and patches of
Powerbuilder were installed. Still the lead engineer didn't feel
comfortable with this command line build process and didn't feel
confident that the build was being done correctly. Eventually the
contract ended. I don't know if they ever managed to automate that build
process - my guess is that they didn't..
If the job of building is taken care of on the central build server
which has full access to all source code, of what relevance is it what
IDE/non-IDE each code module was written in?
Yes. But I'm talking about IDEs which require or assume that you build
from within them. See case in point above - a real world actual case.If
an IDE just writes code then it is nothing but an editor is it not?

As long as the back-office server has access to the actual
source-code via version-control, then the back-office script (insert
alternative here) runs whatever compiler/tools it runs, and then the
results are available on version-control or over the network, or
whatever.

Yes generally that's how most people actually build their software.
That being the case, why would you want your developer to build it in
a different fashion, thus possibly introducing bugs because the
software is built one way by the developer and yet another before
it's released out the door?

Fair point. But decent IDEs allow one to run make-files instead of the
default integrated build process if one wants to, so it's not like one
has lost that option.

Powerbuilder did not have the capability to produce makefile and in fact
required the installation of Powerbuilder on the machine doing the
building as well as being able to contact the Powerbuilder thing itself
because it stored the source files in what it called PBL (Powerbuilder
Libraries). I know that MS VS can output makefiles. That being the case,
why wouldn't you bop into the command line and type a simple make if for
no other reason than to be building the same way the production build
will be building?
I'll admit at this point that I'm not a build engineer, nor do I ever
assume that role, so I'm getting out of my immediate area of
experience. I think it's fair to say, though, that the tools that the
build manager will want to use are inevitably different to the average
coder on a project.

Some 120 engineers working on like 10-15 different projects, each a
compiler or compiler product, all used make (actually clearmake) from
standardized makefiles. Any engineer could build any other project's
code in the exact same manner as they build their own code - it was
simply a clearmake hpux - there you're done! - whether you working on
the Ada compiler, the C compiler, the C++ compiler, FORTRAN, High Level
Optimization, Low Level Optimization, Codegen or whatever. In fact, if
you went to build the C++ compiler it might build Codegen (because it
had been changed) or maybe High Level Optimization, during your course
of building your C++ compiler. Any engineer who went from one project to
the next immediately felt at home as far as the build process. He then
only need to concentrate on what he was being paid for - producing his
code not producing a build system for the project - that was done
already. Furthermore the Integration group could, and eventually did,
build everybody's code before submitting it to manufacturing.
Professionals have profession build systems that have more in mind than
the individual developer but rather have the organization in mind. IDEs
often make making that build system difficult by their very choice of IDE.
--
What happened to the first 6 ups?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 02:55:

Notice that I was referring to jumping to *implementation *, not
*doucmentation* ...

But either way, wading through documentation to find something when
you could just press a button???
But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!

And why wade through all the doc? It's quite easy to make the doc a
Windows help file, and everything is right there. Or, if you wish,
make it a series of HTML pages, although that isn't as easy to search.

Google, HtDig, et. al. would disagree with you!
Once you have the hang of it, Windows help files are very easy to create!

Yeah then try browsing that Windows help file on your Linux workstation...
--
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Oli Filth wrote:

Jerry Stuckle said the following on 26/10/2005 23:42:

But Documentation should be completed BEFORE Implementation!
What bearing does that have on anything?

If the documentation is completed (read DESIGN DOC), then the function
names parameters and return values can be documented

Ah that would be wonderful. But in my some 25 years in the business I
don't think I've ever actually seen that in practice! Then again I do
more admin/build/release stuff... (And surprisingly enough, even at that
late stage of the game, rarely do I see design docs that go to the level
of defining function names and parameters... Sad but true)
Of course, if you don't design the application and fly by the seat of
your pants, that's another story.

In my line of work I'm forced to do that all the time...
--
Do illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE! And BTW - this is a
PHP newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.

But you do need Windows! ;-)

With a web page (and a search engine - of which there are many) you can
do it anywhere, from any machine.
--
Hit any user to continue.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

With Windows help files, you don't NEED an IDE! And BTW - this is a
PHP newsgroup, not a Java newsgroup.

But you do need Windows! ;-)

With a web page (and a search engine - of which there are many) you can
do it anywhere, from any machine.

So? What does that have to do with the original topic - whether an IDE
is better than a text editor or not?

But to respond to your comment. HTML help is fine - but do you have a
search engine which can search all the web pages? I know there are some
out there - but the free ones which will run on an intranet aren't that
great a quality, while the good quality ones are expensive.

Yes, there are some Unix projects out there. And there are developers
who use Unix. I use Unix, also. But virtually all of my development is
done on Windows with a NFS mount from the Linux machine. It's then an
easy job to make the project. And although I don't do much Unix
programming, I don't think I've seen ANY projects which don't have
Windows on the majority of the desktops.

But I'm sure there are some - and the Windows help files don't work
there. But they work for every project in which I've been involved.
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===