[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: IDE
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:37:43 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:20:46 +0300
> On 10/10/2015 02:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> The above more focused and, as such, more useful. "Comprehensive IDE
> >> features" is not as useful.
> >
> > But it narrows the field too much, IMO.
> I wonder.
>  From what I've seen, Emacs facilities that try to do too much, end up 
> over-specializing. That limits the number of users and, consequently, 
> volunteers that would want to support it further. In my view, CEDET is 
> an example of that.

I didn't suggest to use CEDET as the starting point for this purpose.
I suggested to look at the popular IDEs out there, and use their
features as such a starting point.

Once again, we have prior art at our fingertips.  I believe the
features provided by the existing IDEs are a good approximation for
what people will generally expect from an IDE.  I think making a list
of the features we would like to see in the Emacs IDE, based on the
existing prior art, would be a good step forward.

But I repeat myself.  If you still don't agree, let's agree to
disagree on this.

> Another example is ECB that controls how all windows are displayed, and 
> trying to do that in the fashion that many IDE users are accustomed to.

Don't we lack features to support that?  Emacs generally doesn't let
you "dedicate" windows quite like IDEs do, even though we try.

reply via email to

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