2006 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2006 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2006. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends February 18th.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If Eclipse was a QT app. I would vote for it. Kate is better for me simply because it has a built in konsole. Eclipse has a plugin too, but it works funny. Also many things in java are separated from the linux "internals". Kdevelop could be the choice but it is still pretty buggy and works primarily with C++.
Give as VisualC++/C# for linux! Ms sometimes does things well.
I use often QT. Previously it was QT-3. QuiTe easy to do things, a lot of functionality and portable. Just I was frightened with some graphical demos in Qt4 (under SUSE 10.2)(some slowly moving picture being drawed consumes all the CPU and it is quite hard to move any widget with mouse.
And all that with the powerfull enough machine (1Gb Ram, 2GHz CPU)) (Don't they use cycles for pauses in their animations? Good idea to check the code. And that's a luck if this is the reason - otherwise run avay from that such a graphical environment!!! ;-)
Where's the border between IDE and editor (and is it such that Emacs qualifies and tuned gVIM does not)?
Well, Eclipse is written in Java and programmable in Java, has different modes for different files and operations, can interact with compilers / debuggers, and can offer help on the fly for programming.
Emacs is written in Lisp and programmable in Lisp, has different modes for different files and operations, can interact with compilers / debuggers, and can offer help on the fly for programming.
Vim is written in C and programmable in (name-of 'vim-scripting-language), has different modes for different files and operations, can interact with compilers / debuggers, and can offer help on the fly for programming.
So I guess the difference is that you can't script Vim in the language it was written in?
Technically speaking, I suppose you would have to consider any sufficiently programmable editor an IDE. In my experience, however, it is more likely that an Emacs user will extend his editor to behave more like a complete development environment (integrating compiler / debugger / execution tools) than a Vim user, who is more likely to use the standard editing features. Plus, Emacs (though I'm not a Vim expert) seems to have more of these features available without explicit extension.
An interesting side note: a lot of the complicated things that Eclipse does with Java are made possible thanks to certain language extensions that provide capabilities similar to those of Lisp macros.
Er... I'm a Vim user. My .vimrc is rather small. Some 34+ KB. Only standard editing features, surely. We are speaking about those who does use and IDE, and given that someone uses IDE, Vim is not unlikely (even if of all Vim users minority use it as IDE) About 'explicit extensions' - well, yes, you need to take a script from vim.org to interface with gdb. Though I used to count extensions' features as Firefox features, and I translate this attitude to Vim. About same language - well, Emacs has rather big C core to support Elisp language features editor needs. Big enough to fail on gcc3. And Elisp is an Emacs-only language (what would you want from dynamically scoped language, though). By the way, a significant (though less) part of Vim standard (I mean, out-of-the-box) behavior is Vim-script based.