6 ms·
I think part of the issue is that languages like C# (and I would suspect Java) were literally designed with the IDE in mind. Languages like Ruby were designed
by j_baker 17y ago
I think part of the issue is that languages like C# (and I would suspect Java) were literally designed with the IDE in mind. Languages like Ruby were designed to be easy to use without an IDE. I'd prefer the latter, but I suppose a valid case can be made for the former.
On a personal level, I agree with Reginald Braithwaite (sp?) when he said that IDE features are language smells. I think a good language should be easy to use in any IDE.
- jasonlotito 17y agoNever thought of it that way. Of course, I wouldn't call it a language smell, rather a framework or library smell. C# isn't complicated. The frameworks and libraries on top of it are a bit much, and that's where the IDE really helps. C is a small language, but tack on a framework and you aren't learning C as much as you are learning the framework. Same things for Rails. Of course, no one is going to use C# without the frameworks and libraries added in, so I guess you almost have to include the IDE support. But then, seeing what VS 2010 can do makes me wish Eclipse or Netbeans could do it as well. Couple that with the fact that Eclipse and Netbeans feel so heavy and clumsy compared to 2010 despite 2010's size and beta status.