4 ms·
zaphar's point, and I agree with him, is that most of the features you mention should be offered as services that can be used by whatever UI suits your fancy. I
by zarkov99 12y ago
zaphar's point, and I agree with him, is that most of the features you mention should be offered as services that can be used by whatever UI suits your fancy. It is a shame to have to switch to shallow editing tools to be able to benefit from all this machinery.
- pjmlp 12y agoDid you miss the visual part?
- zarkov99 12y agodid you miss the "most" part?
- pjmlp 12y agoNo I did not. A great part of an IDE worflow is the visual experience. Having some kind of service, while forcing each client application to create their own UIs, kind of beats the purpose. This is why on UNIX world the developer experience feels half-baked to those of us that could step a bit into the world as imagined by Xerox PARC.
- EpicEng 12y agoI have never, ever found the "visual experience" to be the reason that I enjoy using an IDE. Besides, even if it were, what about that procludes building a nice UI around existing modules?
- zaphar 12y agoIt's a great part of the workflow for you. For me it's constant visual interruption of flow state. Nothing about having a service prevents offering that visual experience. IntelliJ/Eclipse the IDE can still exist while consuming the same backend that my Emacs consumes. You get your visual experience that helps you achieve flow state. I get my highly configurable/optimized editor that helps me achieve flow state. win/win