Best IDE for PHP...?

Frank wrote:

What is the best IDE for developing PHP applications?
I don't know.
What do you use
emacs
and why?

Best code editor (well... best whatever-text-thing editor) around IMHO.
Very very fast, incredibly extensible, cross-platform, and don't require
me to learn a new editor for each language.

Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #13

emacs

Ah, emacs ... Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping :)

Flame on, folks, flame on.

Jul 16 '05 #14

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

I prefer VIM.

And how!

Jul 16 '05 #15

Joshua Ghiloni wrote:

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:
I prefer VIM.

And how!

What did that mean exacly? Was it a question? You might want to make a
complete sentence for me to understand...

Jul 16 '05 #16

Bertrand Mollinier Toublet

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

Joshua Ghiloni wrote:
Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:
I prefer VIM.

And how! (Et comment !)

What did that mean exacly? Was it a question? You might want to make a
complete sentence for me to understand...

HTH
--
Bertrand Mollinier Toublet
"Reality exists" - Richard Heathfield, 1 July 2003

Jul 16 '05 #17

Zac Hester

"laura" <bi****@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:be**********@newsreader2.mclink.it...

can you explain better how I can do to integrate ftp into Textpad?
I still love it!

laura

Hey Laura,

No problem. (FYI: The help menus in TextPad and my FTP Program were all I
needed to figure this out. Consult your FTP program for the same
capabilities as mine.)

First, I use FTP Voyager 10. It has a very powerful command line interface
which allows me to set up macros from any program that I need to use FTP
capabilities. Looking up the options for the command line, I found these
arguments:

C:\Program Files\RhinoSoft.com\FTP Voyager\FTPVoyager.exe host=myhost.com
user=myusername pass=mypassword remote=htdocs put="C:\My
Directory\MyFile.html" autoquit=1 -nosplash -noduration

Running this from a command prompt will automatically upload the file
specified by the "put" argument to myhost.com and after it's complete, FTP
Voyager will close.

This means it's just a matter of telling TextPad how to use FTP Voyager, and
we're ready to go...

To set up a "Tool Macro" in TextPad 4.6, you just go to Tools ->
Preferences...

At the very bottom of the Preferences tree, there is an item called "Tools."
To add a new tool, click on "Tools" and click the "Add" button followed by
selecting "Program." There, you'll get a chance to browse to the program
you want to add. Choose the main executeable for your FTP program and click
"Open."

This will then spit you back to the Preferences window with a new tool on
the list. To make changes to this tool (which we need to do), expand the
"Tools" branch on the main preferences tree and click on the name of your
new tool. Add the command line options to the "Parameters" line (everything
after the executeable). To make this feature userful, TextPad has a lot of
built-in Macro variables that refer to the currently active document. To
make FTP Voyager upload the active document in TextPad, we'll need to
replace the "put" argument's value with this:

put="$File"

TextPad will replace $File with the full path to your current file. (The
quotation markes are necessary since you'll probably have spaces in your
path like "Documents and Settings.")

After all the parameters are set, click "Apply," then "Ok." Now, check your
"Tools" pull-down menu. You'll notice a new entry at the bottom for your
new tool. You'll also notice it was assigned a hot key sequence. If this
is your first tool, it will be "Ctrl-1."

To test it out, start up a new (non-critical) file and put something in it.
Save it somewhere (the file has to exist on the disk before any FTP program
can find it). Then, just hit "Ctrl-1." In FTP Voyager, the program springs
to life, connects to the host, transfers the file, disconnects, then exits.

If you read the TextPad help menu, you'll see all kinds of other useful
things that can be used with Tool Macros. You can even link in Java
programs or write your own, custom compiled programs or scripts to do more
complex tasks. Check out textpad.com and look through the "Utilities"
section under "Add Ons" and look to see if someone already has built
something that you need TextPad to do.

Happy Editing,
Zac

Jul 16 '05 #18

Joshua Ghiloni wrote:

emacs

Ah, emacs ... Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping :)

Flame on, folks, flame on.

You like it, don't you ?-)

I knew this would start this ol'holywar once again...

<not-so-seriously>
Hey, I even wonder if I didn't hope for it to happen <g> !->
</not-so-seriously>
Now those having eyes may have noticed that I didn't pretend emacs being
the best editor, nor even being superior to any other in any way... Just
answered to the second question <g++>

Okay, let's see how this holy war's doing...

Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #19

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

The mail client in emacs really is the most required thing ever.
As someone said, "Emacs is a nice OS, just missing a good editor" !->
*With a
very sarcastic sound*
IMHO, the fact that someone developped a mail client for emacs is just a
proof of emacs' incredible extensibility. You don't have to use it if
you don't like to...

And I don't even pretend that emacs is the best editor, just that it's
the one I prefer.
I prefer VIM.
I used to...
Simple,
Well... true, if you go for modes !->
lightweight
Not that much anymore, but surely still lighter than emacs.
and extremely powerful.

Absolutely true.

vim is for sure an excellent editor. emacs is another excellent editor.
We all should be happy to have a choice between two excellent editors.

Sorry, I didn't play fair, I know I should have fed the troll...

Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #20

the QuiX project

uws wrote:

What about VIM [1]? It's a very powerful, open-source, free, moded editor.

mvrgr, Wouter

[1] http://www.vim.org/

I second that!

Once you get used to it, you'll find VIM is a great editor.
I use it on Linux (and Windows).

On Linux, I also use KATE, (and on Windows, UltraEdit).

And despite the ongoing debate between VI(M) & EMACS users (about which
is the best editor), I also like (X)EMACS...

The advantage of all these editors, is that you can use them for any
number of languages, which is something I need, since I use C, C++, PHP,
Java, Python, Perl, Clean, Bash, and maybe even more languages ....

But of course, that's just my opinion...

Regards,
Felix

--
the QuiX project
Open Source software

E-Mail: qu**@free.fr
Web: http://www.quix.tk/

Jul 16 '05 #21

> Okay, let's see how this holy war's doing...

Bruno

Your Favorite Editor Sucks! (TM) :)

And no, I don't like emacs. I don't have anything particularly against
it, I just never got the hang of the keyboard shortcuts. I much prefer
vi. Vim is nice, but good ol' vi is all I really need to do anything :)

Jul 16 '05 #22

Phil Roberts

With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Brandon
Blackmoor <bb********@spamcop.net> leapt forth and uttered:

steffen horst wrote:

i don't know textpad. why is it better?

You will have to answer that for yourself:
http://www.textpad.com/

You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
They're just text editors.

--
There is no signature.....

Jul 16 '05 #23

Jules Alberts

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200, uws wrote:

I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Brandon Blackmoor
<bb********@spamcop.net> leapt forth and uttered:
steffen horst wrote:
i don't know textpad. why is it better?
You will have to answer that for yourself: http://www.textpad.com/

You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
They're just text editors.

That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

IMO the most important feature of an IDE is debugging (step etc.). I
practically live in Vim, but alas, it won't do this :-\

Jul 16 '05 #24

Jules Alberts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200, uws wrote:

I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
(snip)

You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
They're just text editors.

That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

IMO the most important feature of an IDE is debugging (step etc.). I
practically live in Vim, but alas, it won't do this :-\

IMHO, debugging is the most important feature of a debugger !-)

Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #25

Code without bugs and you won't need a debugger ;) Structure your code
well, think about it a few times, keep expressions and operations
simple. If you do the above and take your time to code, you won't need a
debugger so much. Of course, code is ready in a little more time, but
you reduce by a lot the debugging time and you might even get less
trouble when time to maintain come.

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

Jules Alberts wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200, uws wrote:

I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
(snip)
You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
They're just text editors.
That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

IMO the most important feature of an IDE is debugging (step etc.). I
practically live in Vim, but alas, it won't do this :-\

IMHO, debugging is the most important feature of a debugger !-)

Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #26

Jonathan Romero

I have been very comfortable using VIM. One thing that I could reccomend as an alternative to an external debugger is to write a set of functions that you can call from within your PHP scripts when starting new sections of code.

I wrote a set of logger functions that output to a text file on the server. If something wierd happens while I am testing some new PHP code I can watch how it happens by reading the text file. If in the future I finish getting the functions to output to the syslog interface I will be able to do

tail --follow /var/log/messages

to watch the code in action.

-Jonathan

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200
uws <uw*@xs4all.invalid> wrote:

I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Brandon
Blackmoor <bb********@spamcop.net> leapt forth and uttered:
steffen horst wrote:
i don't know textpad. why is it better?
You will have to answer that for yourself:
http://www.textpad.com/

You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
They're just text editors.

That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

mvrgr, Wouter

--
uws mail uw*@xs4all.nl

you're the mixed up girl that everybody leaves behind -- our lady peace

Jul 16 '05 #27

Quinten Carlson

I am using anyedit and it is working pretty well for me. Line numbering,
multiple documents accessible via tabs, fast, and free, what else do you
need? I remapped all of my file types (html, php, inc, txt) to anyedit.

http://www.anyedit.org/

B44CCD21

"Phil Roberts" <ph*****@HOLYflatnetSHIT.net> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@206.127.4.21...

With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Brandon
Blackmoor <bb********@spamcop.net> leapt forth and uttered:
steffen horst wrote:

i don't know textpad. why is it better?

You will have to answer that for yourself:
http://www.textpad.com/

Jul 16 '05 #28

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

(please dont top-post - corrected)

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Jules Alberts wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200, uws wrote:
I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
(snip)
> You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
> They're just text editors.

That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

IMO the most important feature of an IDE is debugging (step etc.). I
practically live in Vim, but alas, it won't do this :-\

IMHO, debugging is the most important feature of a debugger !-)

Code without bugs and you won't need a debugger ;) Structure your code
well, think about it a few times, keep expressions and operations
simple. If you do the above and take your time to code, you won't need a
debugger so much. Of course, code is ready in a little more time, but
you reduce by a lot the debugging time and you might even get less
trouble when time to maintain come.

I guess you're not answering to the right person !-)

It may not have been clear, but was I was trying to express is that a
debugger, how useful it can be in some situations, is certainly not the
most essential tool for a developer.

Now, your advices are all really good, and I'd just had 'unit test' to
it. But still it won't make 100% bug free code...

my 2 cents...
Bruno

Jul 16 '05 #29

Kevin Thorpe

Joshua Ghiloni wrote:

Okay, let's see how this holy war's doing...

Bruno

Your Favorite Editor Sucks! (TM) :)

Anything has got to be better than a card punch. Not even emacs has a
function to randomly shuffle your lines of code like dropping a process
pack (at least I don't think so).

Editing programs on tape was interesting as well. Pass me the razor
blade will you?

Jul 16 '05 #30

Jules Alberts

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:59:21 +0000, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote: <snip>
> Code without bugs and you won't need a debugger ;) Structure your
> code well, think about it a few times, keep expressions and
> operations simple. If you do the above and take your time to code,
> you won't need a debugger so much. Of course, code is ready in a
> little more time, but you reduce by a lot the debugging time and you
> might even get less trouble when time to maintain come.

Like another poster said, the debugger isn't the most important tool. Of
course it isn't, but no matter how good the structure of your program is,
no matter how well your design is, at some point a debugger will be (at
least) come in handy.
I guess you're not answering to the right person !-)

It may not have been clear, but was I was trying to express is that a
debugger, how useful it can be in some situations, is certainly not the
most essential tool for a developer.

Now, your advices are all really good, and I'd just had 'unit test' to
it. But still it won't make 100% bug free code...

Right. Personally I'm used to very old-fashioned Clipper but it has a
reasonable debugger which allows you to step through a program, inspect
and change variables etc. PHP is not a bad scritping language, but I find
myself writing little lines like echo '$myVar: ' . $myVar; which is IMHO
stone age debugging. I'll have to have a longer look at IDE's like Zend
and PHPed.

Jul 16 '05 #31

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

(please dont top-post - corrected)

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Jules Alberts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:51:16 +0200, uws wrote:
> I <Xn*************************@206.127.4.21>, Phil Roberts skrev:
>
(snip)

>> You know, it doesn't really matter as none of the above are IDE's.
>> They're just text editors.
>
>
>
>
> That's not totally true. For instance, VIM can deal correctly with
> makefiles, compilers and code formatters.

IMO the most important feature of an IDE is debugging (step etc.). I
practically live in Vim, but alas, it won't do this :-\

IMHO, debugging is the most important feature of a debugger !-)

> Code without bugs and you won't need a debugger ;) Structure your code
> well, think about it a few times, keep expressions and operations
> simple. If you do the above and take your time to code, you won't need a
> debugger so much. Of course, code is ready in a little more time, but
> you reduce by a lot the debugging time and you might even get less
> trouble when time to maintain come.

I guess you're not answering to the right person !-)

It may not have been clear, but was I was trying to express is that a
debugger, how useful it can be in some situations, is certainly not the
most essential tool for a developer.

Now, your advices are all really good, and I'd just had 'unit test' to
it. But still it won't make 100% bug free code...

my 2 cents...
Bruno

In fact, I wanted to reply to the one you replied. Unit tests are much
easyer to make on simple functions and have much less chances of being
wrong.

It's not about being good or bad, it's about being organized and not
jumping on the text editor as soon as you have the slightest idea of
what you want to do.

I hate coding, so I manage to do it once only.

Jul 16 '05 #32

Tony Marston wrote:

Joshua Ghiloni <jd***@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.cwru.edu> wrote in message news:<be**********@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>...
Okay, let's see how this holy war's doing...

Bruno
Your Favorite Editor Sucks! (TM) :)

And no, I don't like emacs. I don't have anything particularly against
it, I just never got the hang of the keyboard shortcuts. I much prefer
vi. Vim is nice, but good ol' vi is all I really need to do anything :)

I tried to use vi once. I discovered that 'vi' stands for 'Virtually
Impossible'. What a bunch of crap!!

Just say it has a high learning curve. VIM is not an editor you can get
in and play around. It needs to be learned. Most who use it don't even
know half of the features it have and already think it's incredible.

Tony Marston

Jul 16 '05 #33