4 ms·

As a .NET dev, I'm happy to see this: "a new way of view, edit, and debug any code without projects and solutions" Seems silly, but this solves a long time gr

by FLGMwt 10y ago

As a .NET dev, I'm happy to see this: "a new way of view, edit, and debug any code without projects and solutions" Seems silly, but this solves a long time gripe w/ VS.

jimmaswell 10y ago
Good for small scripts in python etc I guess? Otherwise, when would you want the IDE's abilities but constrained to one file?
- samb1729 10y ago
  You aren't necessarily limited to editing single files without project files. Lots of projects are folder-based with tasks or commands to be run on that folder structure. See: Rails apps, Hugo websites, anything written in Go.
  - vram22 10y ago
    Right. Directory-based projects were there from the early days of Unix and C, even before make and makefiles organized things a bit.
- vram22 10y ago
  >Good for small scripts in python etc I guess? Otherwise, when would you want the IDE's abilities but constrained to one file? There could be valid cases, including other than small scripts in Python. I recently saw someone on the D forum (forum.dlang.org) write in reply to someone, that he did not want to be bothered with creating a DUB project, while he was in the early / experimental stage of some project he was working on. He said, just using: dmd file1.d file2.d ... filen.d was faster and let him focus on the main work, the code itself. dmd is the Digital Mars D compiler, like (g)cc/cl for C (Linux/Windows). (DUB files are something like makefiles, but specific to D, though D can work with make and makefiles too) I've thought the same and done likewise sometimes, in C, for example, and in D too. For small projects and in initial stages, one may not want to take the time to define a makefile, may instead just prefer to do (in Linux): cc -o prog prog.c ... And likewise in Visual Studio on Windows. But may still want the IDE's abilities such as Intellisense, debugger and suchlike.

by FLGMwt 10y ago

As a .NET dev, I'm happy to see this: "a new way of view, edit, and debug any code without projects and solutions" Seems silly, but this solves a long time gripe w/ VS.

jimmaswell 10y ago

Good for small scripts in python etc I guess? Otherwise, when would you want the IDE's abilities but constrained to one file?

samb1729 10y ago
You aren't necessarily limited to editing single files without project files. Lots of projects are folder-based with tasks or commands to be run on that folder structure. See: Rails apps, Hugo websites, anything written in Go.
- vram22 10y ago
  Right. Directory-based projects were there from the early days of Unix and C, even before make and makefiles organized things a bit.
vram22 10y ago
>Good for small scripts in python etc I guess? Otherwise, when would you want the IDE's abilities but constrained to one file? There could be valid cases, including other than small scripts in Python. I recently saw someone on the D forum (forum.dlang.org) write in reply to someone, that he did not want to be bothered with creating a DUB project, while he was in the early / experimental stage of some project he was working on. He said, just using: dmd file1.d file2.d ... filen.d was faster and let him focus on the main work, the code itself. dmd is the Digital Mars D compiler, like (g)cc/cl for C (Linux/Windows). (DUB files are something like makefiles, but specific to D, though D can work with make and makefiles too) I've thought the same and done likewise sometimes, in C, for example, and in D too. For small projects and in initial stages, one may not want to take the time to define a makefile, may instead just prefer to do (in Linux): cc -o prog prog.c ... And likewise in Visual Studio on Windows. But may still want the IDE's abilities such as Intellisense, debugger and suchlike.