What IDE do you develop with?

--jeremy

Eclipse go on ya good thing

Where's the border between IDE and editor (and is it such that Emacs qualifies and tuned gVIM does not)?

Eclipse is my IDE of choice.

Yeah! I get to vote for emacs twice!

Lucky you!! And I cannot do the same with Vim AND I cannot vote for neither of two audio players I use... Was there any justice in life whenever?

I voted Eclipse.

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.

KDevelop is my IDE of choice. I also like Eclipse, but it works slow on my machine and doesn't support Qt very well.

I use straight Qt for initial set up of a program then import it to Kdevelop where it is very easy to refine.

Does MATLAB count as an IDE? If so then can we please have an option for it?

I'm not totally sure what the precise definition of an IDE is, so maybe it doesn't qualify. If it does then I'd vote for it.

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!!! ;-)

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.

elvis user, procedure:

vi x.c
*edit*
:x
gcc -o x x.c
./x

Does that qualify as an IDE?