5 ms·

That just means you've never worked on a big project, where the component you are responsible for is used by >10 different other components. One very quickly re

That just means you've never worked on a big project, where the component you are responsible for is used by >10 different other components. One very quickly reaches a limit where manual refactoring is an option.

fit2rule 9y ago
Oh, I've worked on plenty of big projects - in fact, your life is probably being protected by my software right now. Its just that I don't believe in succumbing to the crutch of tools. If the IDE is getting in the way, get the IDE out of the way - too many projects are incapable of doing this.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Oh, I've worked on plenty of big projects - in fact, your life is probably being protected by my software right now. Those two are orthogonal concepts. There is e.g. car or medical embedded software that's tiny in scope compared to a big enterprise project.
  - fit2rule 9y ago
    Yeah, try taking a train in any one of 38 different countries around the world .. that big enough for you? No, you really don't need the IDE to make big software.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      You don't need computers to ride trains either. Programming, as most technologies, is not about what you basically need. We are not cavemen. It's about what enhances what you can do.
  - kaftoy 9y ago
    Just a remark on the topic. Been working in vehicle software business for 12+ years now and renaming variables is almost never done. In fact I don't remember someone ever renaming a system (global) variable. There tens of thousands such variables in a system, plus about the same number of calibratable constants. We have renamed our drivers variables only when we switched to a newer architecture (multicore ready, AUTOSAR compliant). The entire code base running a modern car goes well within millions of code lines. Our IDE changed in time from Blue River X32 v5 to internally modified Eclipse plugin. The only major use for us are X32 type contractions. [1] [1]http://tinypic.com/r/20qhq4y/9 http://tinypic.com/r/20qhq4y/9

fit2rule 9y ago

Oh, I've worked on plenty of big projects - in fact, your life is probably being protected by my software right now. Its just that I don't believe in succumbing to the crutch of tools. If the IDE is getting in the way, get the IDE out of the way - too many projects are incapable of doing this.

coldtea 9y ago
>Oh, I've worked on plenty of big projects - in fact, your life is probably being protected by my software right now. Those two are orthogonal concepts. There is e.g. car or medical embedded software that's tiny in scope compared to a big enterprise project.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  Yeah, try taking a train in any one of 38 different countries around the world .. that big enough for you? No, you really don't need the IDE to make big software.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    You don't need computers to ride trains either. Programming, as most technologies, is not about what you basically need. We are not cavemen. It's about what enhances what you can do.
- kaftoy 9y ago
  Just a remark on the topic. Been working in vehicle software business for 12+ years now and renaming variables is almost never done. In fact I don't remember someone ever renaming a system (global) variable. There tens of thousands such variables in a system, plus about the same number of calibratable constants. We have renamed our drivers variables only when we switched to a newer architecture (multicore ready, AUTOSAR compliant). The entire code base running a modern car goes well within millions of code lines. Our IDE changed in time from Blue River X32 v5 to internally modified Eclipse plugin. The only major use for us are X32 type contractions. [1] [1]http://tinypic.com/r/20qhq4y/9 http://tinypic.com/r/20qhq4y/9