Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: should I go with opensource this time>

  • Subject: Re: should I go with opensource this time>
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:54:23 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <dnrhkb$dcs$1@domitilla.aioe.org> <1134742095.901462.117170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <pan.2005.> <lslb73-abn.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [Mark Kent] on Friday 16 December 2005 20:49 \__

> begin  oe_protect.scr
> ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:08:15 -0800, Itai  Raz wrote:
>>> OK, here are a few things I learnt from reading these answers:
>>> 1) Linux people really believe that Linux is a better OS to program on
>>> than windows. They have good arguments for why that is, too.
>>> 2) Linux people's attitude towards Windows programmers ranges between
>>> pity, anger and disgust ;-)
>>> 3) You will never find a windows person that loves their platform half
>>> as much as a Linux person...
>>> 4) Some Linux people believe that the world is run by programmers. This
>>> leads them to believe that if they use a better platform, and they
>>> develop better software, then they will be more successful in selling
>>> their software. Linux people can be a bit naive...
>>> 5) PostgreSQL is considered better than mySQL. The question that comes
>>> to mind is why did mySQL gain more popularity, therefore.
>>> I'm going to try and post this same question in windows.advocacy (I bet
>>> you there isn't one...)
>>> Thanks everyone for your response. I'm pretty convinced, and besiders,
>>> learning new stuff is always fun.
>> FWIW - the MS crowd make a big deal of their integrated development
>> environments. I always found it a lot easier and more productive on the
>> Linux side to have an editor in one window and a terminal in another -
>> edit, compile, run, debug - repeat as needed.

This  approach is to a great extent integrated. With multitasking in mind,
not  every pertinent component need reside in the exact same window.  This
gives you a greater sense of freedom.

I  have been using MATLAB for the past 2+ years and, as you probably know,
MATLAB takes the approach of having a bloated desktop which is broken down
into  editor, files, workspace, debugger, command-line and so forth. After
just  months  of  using it, I found its editor to be a real pain  and  the
cluttered  environment to be unhelpful. Ever since, I always start  MATLAB
in command-line (to distinguish from desktop) mode and use Kate(KWrite) to
edit  files.  It is by far more productive. The desktop only shelters,  in
some sense at least, those who are new to the language.

> The IDE heritage is from Borland's rather good DOS environments, where, at
> least until DRDOS6 came along, there was no windowing and task switching
> capability, so Borlands own environment was pretty revolutionary for
> a PC.  It provided the multiple windows including Editor with highlighted
> breakpoints, project management, assembler integration, context-sensitive
> help for the built-in c-libraries, multiple source windows with automatic
> stepping across the windows in debug mode, and many compiler, assembler
> and linker options available from the IDE menus, it was a huge leap
> forward for compiling in the DOS world, where previously everything /had/
> to be serial.
> Turbo C and Turbo Pascal were very good.  They also had a Basic,
> although I never used it.  You can get them for free now, if you look at
> Borland's website (at least you could a couple of years ago), although
> they were still proprietary.
> As you say, though, the Linux and Unix worlds have had this kind of
> by design, as it were, so the major advantage of the DOS IDE, that being
> enabling a non-serial development approach,  was not a needed step.
> The 'visual' object oriented IDE of MS for Visual Basic was a
> respectable attempt at creating a rapid GUI development environment.
> A step-change in GUI development speed was achieved, compared with using
> eg the Borland BGI libraries in the DOS years.  Lots of instant
> controls, dials, menus, and so on, all drag'n'drop.  I did have a quick
> plug at Borland's Delphi for Linux, which was pretty good, but I wasn't
> sure about the licensing for the resultant code, and whether it was
> really worth it.
> I think a similar environment for Linux could be useful for rapid
> development of GUI apps.

I  am  not  sure you should argue that. With tools like  Glade  and  other
projects  and  initiatives, you  could probably achieve  the  same  thing.
Whether  Linux user pick these up is another matter. Speaking of which, QT
is not so bad either.


Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  2:45am  up 6 days  9:53,  5 users,  load average: 0.90, 0.42, 0.27

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index