3 ms·
> General response to comments: I think some people may not have seen what you can do with a good IDE and a strongly typed static language. Personally I'm not
by Dewie 12y ago
> General response to comments: I think some people may not have seen what you can do with a good IDE and a strongly typed static language.
Personally I'm not sceptical towards IDEs because I don't see the use in them. I'm sceptical towards IDEs because they are so integrated. In Go's case, if they want all the functionality of a modern IDE (at least eventually), I'm guessing they will realize it by putting a bunch of already existing tools (like a debugger, renamer, formatter, etc.) together. I guess this means that all the tools could be used individually, but also as more of a whole. And also this "whole" can be adjusted on a per need basis. Go might be opinionated about the formatting of Go code, but should there be an IDE that is opinionated about the kind of editor one uses to code Go in? (Maybe this isn't inherent to IDEs, but it seems to be what happens.) Rob Pike might prefer to use the Acme editor, others might prefer Emacs or Vim (and not just "emacs keybindings").
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago> Personally I'm not sceptical towards IDEs because I don't see the use in them. I'm sceptical towards IDEs because they are so integrated. This is like saying you're skeptical of ATM's because they are machines.
- jbergens 12y agoI think a lot of people are sceptical against combination of small tools since you tend to end up having to learn how to combine them, which may or may not be easy. There is nothing stopping Google from developing an IDE that internally uses a lot of small tools (refactoring parser etc) and also makes the same tools availible as separate things from the command line. I still think the visual feedback from a good IDE is worthwile and the user interface is usually much easier to work with.