[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: any Windows Emacs haters here?

From: Brandon J. Van Every
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: any Windows Emacs haters here?
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:13:48 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20061025)

Reed Sheridan wrote:

Modifying the internals of some other IDE to avoid configuring your
.emacs isn't going to save you any grief.  Quite the opposite.  You
could probably figure out how to get Emacs to indent your code the way
you want in a day, at worst.

But that's what's ridiculous about XEmacs. It should be doing that correctly out of the box. I don't mean it doesn't indent the way I want. I mean it doesn't indent at all. Throwing "a day" at things is the whole mentality of Emacs that I think sucks. It's forever broken, there's always some new bit of the docs you've gotta futz with. It's just a big bloated ancient application with a lot of hair.

I've discovered Scintilla / SciTE. It's way smaller and claims to have some Scheme support already. Reading what / how I could configure it is just 1 long webpage. MinGW appears to be working out of the box. Most importantly, it's a popular and mature open source project. Plus it's MIT licensed.

I've gone through about a half dozen MinGW IDEs now, and I'm thinking that smaller is better. The problem is, once the app starts seeing itself as an IDE rather than a text editor, it starts trying to control the build system. It may invent its own build system, which makes CMake support politically difficult. Or else it starts thinking it's supposed to provide a RAD environment, or huge class libraries, or whatever. Which leads to tons more documentation, it's harder to figure out, and harder to modify. Core development effort goes towards more abstract high-level features, instead of the basics of working well out of the box.

So we'll see how far I get with SciTE.

Brandon Van Every

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]