4 ms·

You may say this, but I don't see semantic member or statement completion for any language. I don't see "go to definition" or "find all references." Frankly, al

by doty 17y ago

You may say this, but I don't see semantic member or statement completion for any language. I don't see "go to definition" or "find all references." Frankly, although cc-mode is fantastic for indentation and stuff, it offers a small fraction of the features of Eclipse or NetBeans. Yes, I've used ctags and I've used etags. They tend to be interesting approximations but are never 100% reliable. They don't do a deep sematic analysis of my program. (For example, they don't understand C macros.) They don't update as I type. The closest I've ever seen has been the "Semantic Bovinator" thingy. I have never managed to get it to run, nor has anybody I've seen try. You experience may be different, of course. (I realize that by posting this I'm inviting a raft of people to post and say "It works for me!" :) )

nitrogen 17y ago
cscope is quite a bit better than ctags, and is insanely fast on modern hardware. It integrates in vim (and probably emacs) and does fully analyze C, including "calls" and "called by" info. It appears to be useful for C++ and Java as well: http://cscope.sourceforge.net/ http://cscope.sourceforge.net/ That said, I use vim for C, but I still use Eclipse for Java and C++/Qt.
scott_s 17y ago
"Go to definition" is 'gd' in vim. If vim has it, emacs certainly does. Perhaps vim and emacs don't do everything you want. But also, perhaps you don't know their capabilities as well as you think you do?
aerique 17y ago
I don't see "go to definition" or "find all references." SLIME has this in Emacs for Common Lisp and perhaps other languages that work with SLIME. I'm on a non-multitasking phone now so you'll have to do the googling yourself.
sjs 17y ago
I said, "Almost every feature ...", and you probably found a few it lacks. I'm not talking in absolutes as that rarely produces an interesting discussion. Thus I don't really see your point, if anything you helped to prove mine, as hundreds or thousands of other features are available out-of-the-box or on Emacs wiki, github, etc. Additionally I don't understand why one needs IDE support for something `grep -Hn` can do, but to each his own. We might use different technologies. I mostly write Objective-C, Ruby, Python, C, JavaScript, and recently some Objective-J and Erlang. Now and then I write Lisp (CL, Emacs), Scheme, Haskell, x86 assembly, and PHP. The only one of those I don't write in Emacs is Obj-C. Other editors or IDEs may be better at certain tasks, just as Emacs has unparalleled Lisp support with SLIME. When there is clearly a best tool in one field then people tend to use that tool, if the payoff is worth it. Except for pg and a few others, people generally write Lisp in Emacs. I write Cocoa and Cocoa Touch apps in Xcode and IB. I'm pragmatic about it. But when I tried to use Eclipse for Mojo (webOS) because Palm recommended Eclipse + Mojo plugin, it ended up being more productive for me to extend an existing Mojo mode for Emacs[1] to have even more features[2] than the Eclipse plugin (or any of the others, Komodo, etc). Similarly if I were doing Java I would at least look into IntelliJ IDEA or Eclipse. [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MojoSdk http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MojoSdk and http://github.com/samsonjs/mojo.el http://github.com/samsonjs/mojo.el [2] http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Editors http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Editors (temporarily down)

by doty 17y ago

nitrogen 17y ago

cscope is quite a bit better than ctags, and is insanely fast on modern hardware. It integrates in vim (and probably emacs) and does fully analyze C, including "calls" and "called by" info. It appears to be useful for C++ and Java as well: http://cscope.sourceforge.net/ http://cscope.sourceforge.net/ That said, I use vim for C, but I still use Eclipse for Java and C++/Qt.

scott_s 17y ago

"Go to definition" is 'gd' in vim. If vim has it, emacs certainly does. Perhaps vim and emacs don't do everything you want. But also, perhaps you don't know their capabilities as well as you think you do?

aerique 17y ago

I don't see "go to definition" or "find all references." SLIME has this in Emacs for Common Lisp and perhaps other languages that work with SLIME. I'm on a non-multitasking phone now so you'll have to do the googling yourself.

sjs 17y ago

I said, "Almost every feature ...", and you probably found a few it lacks. I'm not talking in absolutes as that rarely produces an interesting discussion. Thus I don't really see your point, if anything you helped to prove mine, as hundreds or thousands of other features are available out-of-the-box or on Emacs wiki, github, etc. Additionally I don't understand why one needs IDE support for something `grep -Hn` can do, but to each his own. We might use different technologies. I mostly write Objective-C, Ruby, Python, C, JavaScript, and recently some Objective-J and Erlang. Now and then I write Lisp (CL, Emacs), Scheme, Haskell, x86 assembly, and PHP. The only one of those I don't write in Emacs is Obj-C. Other editors or IDEs may be better at certain tasks, just as Emacs has unparalleled Lisp support with SLIME. When there is clearly a best tool in one field then people tend to use that tool, if the payoff is worth it. Except for pg and a few others, people generally write Lisp in Emacs. I write Cocoa and Cocoa Touch apps in Xcode and IB. I'm pragmatic about it. But when I tried to use Eclipse for Mojo (webOS) because Palm recommended Eclipse + Mojo plugin, it ended up being more productive for me to extend an existing Mojo mode for Emacs[1] to have even more features[2] than the Eclipse plugin (or any of the others, Komodo, etc). Similarly if I were doing Java I would at least look into IntelliJ IDEA or Eclipse. [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MojoSdk http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MojoSdk and http://github.com/samsonjs/mojo.el http://github.com/samsonjs/mojo.el [2] http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Editors http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Editors (temporarily down)