3 ms·

I have no problem with `vim-go`. Go works without an IDE because the language has a simple project model which lends itself to good, modular tooling. You can st

by weberc2 10y ago

I have no problem with `vim-go`. Go works without an IDE because the language has a simple project model which lends itself to good, modular tooling. You can still use an IDE with Go if you like, but no one is twisting your arm.

smsm42 10y ago
Nearly everything works without an IDE. There are added services making working easier in IDE though. Saying "no IDE is needed because the modular system is so good" usually either a delusion or kind of misguided roughshod pride ("in my time, we just made bits by banging rocks together, you kids are so spoiled") that sacrifices productivity for no real reason.
- weberc2 10y ago
  You're plainly misinformed. According to the most recent Go developer survey, only 12% of respondents use an IDE; the rest use text editors (in fact, more people use vim specifically than all IDEs combined). Developing Go without an IDE is quite feasible. The particularities of IDEs which make them more productive than text editors are artifacts of the poor project system found in most languages. If you fix the problem at its root, you're free to reap the efficiencies of a proper editor instead of the mediocre one that comes bundled with your IDE. Of course your conclusion that IDEs are more somehow productive than text editors is completely baseless (or perhaps only based on experience with Java and the like).
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > According to the most recent Go developer survey, only 12% of respondents use an IDE; There are two possible reasons for this I can see: 1. Go is so awesome that unlike any other language I've used in my multi-decade carrier, it can not be improved with an IDE. It's just an ideal and any attempted improvement would just spoil it. 2. There's no decent IDEs for Go and Go developers are forced to do with what they've got. My experience shows the former is much more probable than the latter. > Developing Go without an IDE is quite feasible Of course, people programmed when ed was an IDE, and before that. It's humanly possible. Is it better? I highly doubt it. > The particularities of IDEs which make them more productive than text editors are artifacts of the poor project system found in most languages I'm sorry but this statement sounds both misinformed and fanboyish. There are tons of benefits to IDE which have nothing to do with "poor project system" - from module management to task management to refactoring to keeping integrated information about the project to code assist, etc., etc. I could spend an hour writing them. Claiming that Go "fixed" need for IDE sounds, excuse me for being blunt, laughable. It's like when iPhone was first released, I heard some fanboy claim that iPhone interface is so intuitive one doesn't need copy-paste (first version didn't have it). Of course, next update added copy-paste and iPhone users (including the said fanboy) are happily using it ever since. > or perhaps only based on experience with Java and the like Yes, it is based on almost 30 years of experience with programming in multitude of languages and environments, and this experience is why I find claims that Go is so awesome it needs no IDE so laughable. I'm sorry to look self-aggrandizing here, but you asked about it so I have to say it I guess.
    - weberc2 10y ago
      > I'm sorry but this statement sounds both misinformed and fanboyish. Fanboyish? Quite a statement from someone arguing that IDEs are necessary--my position is that they're optional. Misinformed? The features you list aren't particular to an IDE--they're available in any pluggable editor, which is a repackaging of my point. I don't mind a rude rebuke, but you're not even vaguely correct. Forgive me for basing my decisions off experience and not your misinformed speculation. ;)

by weberc2 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

Nearly everything works without an IDE. There are added services making working easier in IDE though. Saying "no IDE is needed because the modular system is so good" usually either a delusion or kind of misguided roughshod pride ("in my time, we just made bits by banging rocks together, you kids are so spoiled") that sacrifices productivity for no real reason.

weberc2 10y ago
You're plainly misinformed. According to the most recent Go developer survey, only 12% of respondents use an IDE; the rest use text editors (in fact, more people use vim specifically than all IDEs combined). Developing Go without an IDE is quite feasible. The particularities of IDEs which make them more productive than text editors are artifacts of the poor project system found in most languages. If you fix the problem at its root, you're free to reap the efficiencies of a proper editor instead of the mediocre one that comes bundled with your IDE. Of course your conclusion that IDEs are more somehow productive than text editors is completely baseless (or perhaps only based on experience with Java and the like).
- smsm42 10y ago
  > According to the most recent Go developer survey, only 12% of respondents use an IDE; There are two possible reasons for this I can see: 1. Go is so awesome that unlike any other language I've used in my multi-decade carrier, it can not be improved with an IDE. It's just an ideal and any attempted improvement would just spoil it. 2. There's no decent IDEs for Go and Go developers are forced to do with what they've got. My experience shows the former is much more probable than the latter. > Developing Go without an IDE is quite feasible Of course, people programmed when ed was an IDE, and before that. It's humanly possible. Is it better? I highly doubt it. > The particularities of IDEs which make them more productive than text editors are artifacts of the poor project system found in most languages I'm sorry but this statement sounds both misinformed and fanboyish. There are tons of benefits to IDE which have nothing to do with "poor project system" - from module management to task management to refactoring to keeping integrated information about the project to code assist, etc., etc. I could spend an hour writing them. Claiming that Go "fixed" need for IDE sounds, excuse me for being blunt, laughable. It's like when iPhone was first released, I heard some fanboy claim that iPhone interface is so intuitive one doesn't need copy-paste (first version didn't have it). Of course, next update added copy-paste and iPhone users (including the said fanboy) are happily using it ever since. > or perhaps only based on experience with Java and the like Yes, it is based on almost 30 years of experience with programming in multitude of languages and environments, and this experience is why I find claims that Go is so awesome it needs no IDE so laughable. I'm sorry to look self-aggrandizing here, but you asked about it so I have to say it I guess.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    > I'm sorry but this statement sounds both misinformed and fanboyish. Fanboyish? Quite a statement from someone arguing that IDEs are necessary--my position is that they're optional. Misinformed? The features you list aren't particular to an IDE--they're available in any pluggable editor, which is a repackaging of my point. I don't mind a rude rebuke, but you're not even vaguely correct. Forgive me for basing my decisions off experience and not your misinformed speculation. ;)