![]() ![]() So there's familiarity with this combination.If you want to learn to program, you need a place to write your code. I use a fairly high end machine so the resources used by RubyMine doesn't bother me (and every other JetBrains IDE is crazy fast compared to AppCode…)īut JetBrains have a decent vim plugin so I still get to use vi across all my work, programming or not, and since their IDEs are all based on the same framework, they work very similarly. I still run commands like `bundle` and `rails` in the terminal. * When I don't absolutely need an IDE - example for Ruby work, I use RubyMine. Swift code can be very hard to navigate in an editor that is not an IDE due to type inference. The navigation and refactoring capabilities are great. * When I want an IDE - example for iOS work, I use AppCode. I found that JetBrains IDEs are great for me for programming work because I can group them into these 2 types: I always have a MacVim window open as a general text editor. I don't want a separate IDE for each language. But I want one editor I can use across all the languages I develop in. > JetBrains various IDEs - haven't really given it a fair shake yet. I suspect one of the syntax highlighting grammars he's using has one or more regex patterns that's backtracking itself to death. Its performance is great though and I sometimes use it for reading log files.Īnyway, I've only ever had TextMate crap out like OP describes when I paste a file into it with very long lines AND with syntax highlighting enabled. BBEdit - I just find something about it very klunky and its extensibility and integration with the command-line too limited. JetBrains various IDEs - haven't really given it a fair shake yet. Eclipse - even more bloated and un-Mac like. vi - I often use vi as an adjunct editor, but I want a proper Mac app and GUI most of the time. It just felt like emacs demanded too much attention to itself. I'd forget how to use some functionality I knew emacs was capable of and the discovery process for finding it is/was too time consuming. I used to use it as my primary editor, but I just don't really grok lisp so extending and configuring it was always painful. emacs - its working set is bigger than my brain. I am fluent at switching between the terminal and TextMate during my editing sessions, often using various Unix tools (sed, awk, sort, grep, tr, git, etc) either in iTerm2 or directly via TextMate's ability to pipe text into a process and replace it in the buffer with the output. Next to TextMate I always have one or more iTerm2 panes open in the same directory as the project I'm working on. Over the course of a week, it's not unusual for me to work on: Python, Javascript, Makefiles, YAML, C, Objective-C, C++, Groovy, Java, shell scripts, Markdown, and plain text files, with nearly 100% of those files in git repos. I navigate through a lot of languages and file types throughout my day. I've been using TextMate since 1.0 when it was the darling editor of the Ruby on Rails community, though I've never been a Rails developer and I hardly ever edit Ruby files that aren't Chef or Homebrew or Cocoapods DSL files. ![]() It's still the only editor I've found that's powerful enough for my needs and small enough to fit into my head, that feels like a Mac app, but is extensible using all the power of Unix under the hood. Huh, I thought I was the last person using TextMate. ![]() I'm surprised that his predictions don't match with what we have. I don't mean this as a disagreement to the article - Rust gives developers tools to make high quality software! The Rust project itself is superb. Fine if you use the libraries that are thin wrappers on the C APIs, but ones that try to apply a Safe or Rusty API are lower quality. Graphics programming - Churn, and low-quality results compared to C libraries eg for Vulkan. Internally, dependency hell, and filled with generics and Async. Backend web dev - Several Flask analogs, but nothing that makes sense to use for a web page. Dependency hell, poor APIs, hardware support that's been designed to make trivial examples and never tested on practical firmware etc. Most of the higher level libraries, and the chat on Rust embedded communication channels are a mess. There are a handful of high-quality tools (eg probe-run, defmt, SVD2Rust etc). In practice, most of the Rust OSS I find is poor quality, ie the article's lament of "today's software quality crisis – crashes, bloat and more." I'm suspicious my observations are because I'm viewing select slice of Rust code perhaps the higher quality code examples aren't OSS, so I haven't seen them. I think his or her points about why Rust should encourage high quality programs makes sense. My experience with Rust codebases has been different from the Author's.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |