4 ms·

In Eclipse you can write some gibberish and it automatically turns it into valid Java that mostly does what you want. Isn't this the reason that many treat j

by srean 16y ago

In Eclipse you can write some gibberish and it automatically turns it into valid Java that mostly does what you want. Isn't this the reason that many treat java programmers as suspect ? I think IDEs are fine once you have mastered the language and the syntax, but it often masks the gaps and deficiencies in one's own knowledge. I find that a bit scary. I understand that mine would be a minority view. Guess work at the IDE together with TDD has significant fan following. Apparently it gets the job done, if that be so, who am I to complain. Edit: It seems I have hurt someone's ego :|

frou_dh 16y ago
I think C# really exhibits this. Almost everyone starts (and stays with) Visual Studio, which has extensive auto-completion, meaning if you ever use a plain text editor, it's startling how little of the library you have in your fingertips.
barrkel 16y ago
No, I don't think this is a valid reason - in fact, I think it's a prejudice which disguises an ignorance of why languages with productive IDEs are so good. An IDE with code completion means you can get more done without having to waste time studying API docs; in fact, the IDE's editor can itself become the most efficient doc lookup tool. This gives you more time and attention space to point at your problem domain, rather than mere incidental details. Object orientation with static typing is a big contributor to this, because you start out with what you want to act on - the noun, which is usually a local variable or field - and get completion on the actions available on that noun. The contrast with functional and procedural styles is stark: there, you need to know the symbolic name of what you want to do to something you already have in hand, but editor completion is almost powerless to help you, because of the order of tokens in the syntax.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- swift 16y ago
  Statically typed "pure" functional languages have somewhat different tradeoffs when it comes to looking up functions; the style of code completion common in OO languages doesn't work, but because the type of a function encodes so much more meaning about what the function does, you are often able to find the function you are looking for just by giving its type to a tool like Haskell's Hoogle. This is less automatic, but it enables you to search a large array of libraries simultaneously, which is very helpful when you don't know what library contains the function in question!
  - eru 16y ago
    Yes. And there's no reason you couldn't integrate Hoogle in your editor.
pnathan 16y ago
I don't know about the connection with Java coders being suspect - I would have suspicions of anyone who's never stepped off a VM into an actual machine. I don't care for IDEs either: the farthest I get is my emacs textual expansion.

by srean 16y ago

frou_dh 16y ago

I think C# really exhibits this. Almost everyone starts (and stays with) Visual Studio, which has extensive auto-completion, meaning if you ever use a plain text editor, it's startling how little of the library you have in your fingertips.

barrkel 16y ago

No, I don't think this is a valid reason - in fact, I think it's a prejudice which disguises an ignorance of why languages with productive IDEs are so good. An IDE with code completion means you can get more done without having to waste time studying API docs; in fact, the IDE's editor can itself become the most efficient doc lookup tool. This gives you more time and attention space to point at your problem domain, rather than mere incidental details. Object orientation with static typing is a big contributor to this, because you start out with what you want to act on - the noun, which is usually a local variable or field - and get completion on the actions available on that noun. The contrast with functional and procedural styles is stark: there, you need to know the symbolic name of what you want to do to something you already have in hand, but editor completion is almost powerless to help you, because of the order of tokens in the syntax.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
swift 16y ago
Statically typed "pure" functional languages have somewhat different tradeoffs when it comes to looking up functions; the style of code completion common in OO languages doesn't work, but because the type of a function encodes so much more meaning about what the function does, you are often able to find the function you are looking for just by giving its type to a tool like Haskell's Hoogle. This is less automatic, but it enables you to search a large array of libraries simultaneously, which is very helpful when you don't know what library contains the function in question!
- eru 16y ago
  Yes. And there's no reason you couldn't integrate Hoogle in your editor.

pnathan 16y ago

I don't know about the connection with Java coders being suspect - I would have suspicions of anyone who's never stepped off a VM into an actual machine. I don't care for IDEs either: the farthest I get is my emacs textual expansion.