3 ms·
Definitely agree, however I can also see the shortcomings of the "IDE languages". One of the nice things about non-auto-completable scripting languages is that
by woah 12y ago
Definitely agree, however I can also see the shortcomings of the "IDE languages". One of the nice things about non-auto-completable scripting languages is that they force you to write code that you can reason about yourself. IDEs let you write really inelegant code that you can still continue to slog through because of autocomplete.
Another big downside of IDEs is that they constrain your choice of tooling to only the IDE. There's a rich ecosystem of editors, preprocessors, templating, etc. for JS, but (for example) in iOS development you only get xcode's half-working gee-whiz features like the interface builder. In my experience, the more IDE features there are, the more of your program moves into hidden, IDE-specific automagical stuff.
So resistance that you may see to IDE's is not because someone wants to be "hardcore", but because they recognize that it is desirable for code to be able to stand on its own and be understood by a human no matter the editor used.
- bootload 12y ago"recognize that it is desirable for code to be able to stand on its own and be understood by a human no matter the editor used." That and hardware constraint.
- jschwartzi 12y agoI especially hate IDE features that don't have a corresponding plaintext representation that you can edit. For example, a graphical layout editor which saves data into a binary blob that then requires a special merge tool which is only available in the IDE.