[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [DotGNU]IDE questions
RE: [DotGNU]IDE questions
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:51:33 -0800
Would it not be possible to create the "best of both worlds"?
One could create a binary that reads a binary XML project file, and then
update the xxx_SOURCES (+ etc) for automake into the makefile.am. Then in
the makefile.am add a rule that makes the makefile.am dependant on the .XML
Then the IDE can store it's stuff, and the make system can store it's stuff.
I wouldn't want the makefile cluttered with all of the IDE stuff. Further
there is some stuff you want to be able to type directly into the
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
Behalf Of David Sugar
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IDE questions
Yes, this was exactly my original point :). The idea of having an XML
project file is not bad in of itself, but the build tools should
integrate with those that are already commonly used.
Similarly, autoconf and automake and make should be aware of what a C#
(and Java, for that matter) source file is, and how to build it, with
default make rules, etc. Having a csant as Rhy's suggests is also
certainly very useful for people doing new projects and pure C#
projects, but if one is mixing some C# within a larger C/C++ project,
having our traditional build tools support this easily and automatically
would be very useful as well.
> Tomislav Sajdl wrote:
>> files, which is problem. What about idea to define in advance project
>> format for DotGNU? I would suggest it to be XML based. If we define
>> all tags
> Mr. Sugar's mention of this was in the context of his complaint about
> the development of _any_ special project file, XML or not. His
> original post said:
> <<When one talks about IDE's in general, what I have always wanted was
> something that integrated well with existing tools and practices. Just
> about every IDE I have ever seen insists on it's own specially formatted
> "project file". What I would like is something that supports
> autoconf/automake based build trees as we normally do them rather than a
> foriegn project build format.>>
> I totally agree with him on this point; I would like to see a
> development environment that only uses existing files; there seems to
> be enough information in existing build systems to build & coordinate
> a project, so why not rely on those files alone?
> The closest he got to any sort of project file, XML included, was the
> mention of a /minimal/ project file that contained /minimal/ information.
> Also, I would like to vote down the term 'IDE', as this implies a
> single program? The GDE (graphical development environment project, as
> I am calling it in the tasklist) will hopefully be quite different and
> more tolerable by experienced developers than 'IDE's.
Developers mailing list