evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) (06/09/89)
After having programmed in C for a number of years, I have come across various useful components to a programmer's environment; however, I still wonder if other tidbits have passed me by. My question is this, what would you, the programmer, consider part of the ideal C programming environment (some of this, I realize, is useful for other than C programming, but that is not of my concern :->)? I would certainly include: - make - a symbolic debugger - error (on UNIX -- inserts comments which are error msgs.) - a C interpereter (which can call compiled sub-modules) - a C compiler (of-course) - vi - curses (no flames, please) what else would you include (it doesn't have to exist) ? I am anxiously awaiting the response. Wade Guthrie evil@arcturus.UUCP Rockwell International Anaheim, CA (Rockwell doesn't necessarily believe / stand by what I'm saying; how could they when *I* don't even know what I'm talking about???)
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (06/12/89)
Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs...
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/12/89)
According to evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie): >After having programmed in C for a number of years, I have come across >various useful components to a programmer's environment; however, I still >wonder if other tidbits have passed me by. Well, making the assumption that you're using Unix... RCS (Revision Control System) -or- SCCS (Source Code Control System) diff (esp. context diff) perl (for wholesale batch text editing, it's better than sed) tcsh or bash (love that filename completion...) -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
pld@hpcll10.HP.COM (Paul L. Dineen) (06/14/89)
echo "Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs..." >>comp.editors
paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011) (06/14/89)
In article <14810.2494481A@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... Or, to generalize, scrap vi and replace it with <substitue whatever editor you are most comfortable with or rabidly addicted to here>. Much religion here.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/15/89)
In article <14810.2494481A@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... Emacs. What a wimp. I have this awesome version of TECO implemented in Lisp 1.5 that I run under Xlisp 1.6 using a compatibility package. It works great under MS-DOS and CP/M, and a little shell script is all I need to run it under UNIX: : run this under sh if [ -r xlisp.exe ] then vpix xlisp else stty raw; xlisp; stty cooked fi (It's a joke, OK) -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (06/16/89)
In article <6027@microsoft.UUCP> paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011) writes: >In article <14810.2494481A@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >>Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... > >Or, to generalize, scrap vi and replace it with ><substitue whatever editor you are most comfortable with >or rabidly addicted to here>. Much religion here. Or, to finish the trinity, scrap <whatever editor you are unable to comprehend with the ease that came from having no choice but to learn the one you currently use> and replace it with <whatever editor you are most comfortable with or rabidly addicted to>. Much religion here. --Blair "The Ed, the Ex, and the Holy Vi... The TECO, the EMACS and the GNU Emacs..."
kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu (06/16/89)
/* Written 10:28 am Jun 14, 1989 by paulc@microsoft.UUCP in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.lang.c */ In article <14810.2494481A@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... Or, to generalize, scrap vi and replace it with <substitue whatever editor you are most comfortable with or rabidly addicted to here>. Much religion here. /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.lang.c */ But, if you're a system administrator, *don't* force your users to scrap their favorite environments unless it's necessary to preserve consistency of your product. I've had the experience of working on a system where the sysadmin wouldn't *allow* me to use emacs (which was on the system, but available only to users with a `documented need') because `vi is better, anyway.' Annoying, at best; crippling, at worst.
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (06/16/89)
In article <660040@hpcll10.HP.COM>, pld@hpcll10 (Paul L. Dineen) writes: > > echo "Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs..." >>comp.editors $ echo "Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs..." >>alt.flame
bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) (06/16/89)
[ let's bring this discussion over to comp.editors ] From article <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu> by kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu: | I've had the experience of working on a |system where the sysadmin wouldn't *allow* me to use emacs (which was |on the system, but available only to users with a `documented need') |because `vi is better, anyway.' Annoying, at best; crippling, at |worst. I agree on this - use the tools available which fit your needs best. On the other hand, a few days ago I used news on a machine where I normally don't - and the default VISUAL was emacs which I have never used. Could all you emacs fans please give a good reason for not having an obvious way of getting OUT of emacs, I tried anything like q, Q, x, X various control keys etc., all without very much success. I really don't know how I finally got out of it. Maybe I should just learn emacs - if we had it on this system :-) -- Bjorn Engsig, ORACLE Europe \ / "Hofstadter's Law: It always takes Path: mcvax!orcenl!bengsig X longer than you expect, even if you Domain: bengsig@oracle.nl / \ take into account Hofstadter's Law"
rkl@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (kevin.laux) (06/16/89)
How about a linker and an archiver/librarian? --rkl
frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) (06/20/89)
In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >In article <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> But, if you're a system administrator, *don't* force your users to >> scrap their favorite environments unless it's necessary to preserve >> consistency of your product. > >How about this one: >In an office with a lot of people using spreadsheets, databases, >word processors, everybody uses Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and >WordPerfect. Everybody is happy. Then somebody is hired who is >realy comfortable with some other set of tools. He tears into >everything and becomes really productive, and everybody is still >happy. Then he leaves for whatever reason, and now nobody can >figure out any of his stuff. They can't run payroll, read any of >his WP files, etc. Then the new guy wonders why the management >says "you will use *these* tools." This seems a red herring to me. vi/emacs/your-fave-editor all work on the *same* stuff, plain text files. So do all the compilers, etc.. At least in this case, the problems associated with incompatible file formats and so on don't apply. In terms of product, all development environments ought to be equivalent. [Of course, if the new guy uses another programming language, that's a fish of a different colour.] -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (06/20/89)
> In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact > of other things like compilers, but in many environments, > personal productivity is not the highest measure. In article <4726@alvin.mcnc.org>, spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes: > What is? Conformity? I can't say for sure what the highest measure it, but "group productivity" is likely to be right up there. Of course, personal productivity of the individual team members is a very important part of this, and I am the first to encourage people to use tools and techniques that let them make best use of their time. When they take a turn that cuts down on the productivity of the other team members, then the benefits of this new turn must be weighed. Let's say that any ten of us (including me) are on the project team. I might be very productive, but if my C coding style is *so*out*there* that nobody can read my code (or refuses to), then should I be allowed to keep it? I say maybe not. Yes, a forced change will cut down on my productivity, but if it increases the overall group productivity then it must be considered. Some productivity measures are benign with respect to the group, and I would say that choice of an editor is one of them (assuming the selected one is available anyway). Saying "you can't use Emacs because we don't like you" seems like a shortsighted decision to me. These decisions can certainly be religious -- programmers have strongs senses of "doing it my way" -- and they are subjective as well. Nevertheless, the impact of all personal decisions must be weighed against the productivity of the group. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl / V-Systems, Inc. / Santa Ana, CA / +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy / friedl@vsi.com / {attmail, uunet, etc}!vsi!friedl ---> vsi!bang!friedl <-- NEW "Friends don't let friends run Xenix" - me
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (06/20/89)
In an article of <15 Jun 89 19:02:00 GMT>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >>Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... > >Or, to generalize, scrap vi and replace it with ><substitue whatever editor you are most comfortable with >or rabidly addicted to here>. Much religion here. >/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.lang.c */ > >But, if you're a system administrator, *don't* force your users to >scrap their favorite environments unless it's necessary to preserve >consistency of your product. I've had the experience of working on a >system where the sysadmin wouldn't *allow* me to use emacs (which was >on the system, but available only to users with a `documented need') >because `vi is better, anyway.' Annoying, at best; crippling, at worst. Which is what I was really trying to imply in the first place. Sheesh, what did I start here?!? I use Epsilon (which is an Emacs derivative) where possible and Emacs everywhere else. When starting a new job, I walk in with my tape/disk/rosetta stone/etc. of EEL code and make whatever machine I'm working on look as much like what I'm used to as the keyboard will allow. Aside from merely being used to Emacs, I like its programmability and that it's usually available anywhere I go. *BUT* the real goal is productivity - your mileage may vary...
ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) (06/21/89)
In <4726@alvin.mcnc.org> Steve Lamont wrote: > In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > | Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact > | of other things like compilers, but in many environments, > | personal productivity is not the highest measure. > >What is? Conformity? It is not clear quite where this is going to or coming from, but an editor war is unnecessary in response to the original question of what tools would be usefull in a programming environment. It should be sufficient to say that the editor of the programmer's choice should be included. Also, Steve, it may be that the editor of choice is not available as a vendor supported product. In many situations, and becoming more common as binary only systems become more common, only one visual editor is available as an official product from the vendor. In such a situation, the system administration may not be able to deal with the headaches of supporting a different editor. Even if the code for the editor may be available for "free", there are significant costs to supporting it that may not be obvious. Most readers of these newsgroups are fortunate to have full source code access, or at least access to some additional support. But we tend to forget that we are not the majority of computer users.
raulmill@nunki.usc.edu (Raul) (07/01/89)
In article <4962@arcturus> evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes:
-> After having programmed in C for a number of years, I have come across
-> various useful components to a programmer's environment; however, I still
-> wonder if other tidbits have passed me by. My question is this, what would
-> you, the programmer, consider part of the ideal C programming environment
Looks like this topic has turned into fluff, but if anyone is still
reading it, I have found that I VERY VERY MUCH like the combination of
etags with emacs (gnu emacs, and probably others). For those of you
who have never run across this (or have some other variant of the same
tool), etags builds a reference table which emacs uses to locate
functions. With etags, you can edit a multi-megabyte program which
might even be scattered throughout your directory structure almost as
easily as if you were editing one file. Actually, it is easier than
editing a single file, if you consider the pain of editing a program
saved as a multi-megabyte file.
Rumor has it that vi users can get some of this functionality with a
program called ctags.
Raul Rockwell |
INTERNET: raulmill@usc.edu |
UUCP: ...uunet!usc!raulmill | 55 mph = 82 nc
U.S.SNAIL: 721 E Windsor #4, GLENDALE CA 91205 |dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) (07/22/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) sez: > Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes: >>Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs... > > Emacs. What a wimp. I have this awesome version of TECO implemented in Lisp > 1.5 that I run under Xlisp 1.6 using a compatibility package. It works great > under MS-DOS and CP/M, and a little shell script is all I need to run it > under UNIX: > > (It's a joke, OK) Real strange.... It _MUST_ be the full moon - this is the second case of comp.editors.wars going on right now - if anyone would care to check in comp.os.cpm there's one in progress. (now please, don't start a third flame war, it's getting pretty warm round here) For those that are interested (or running hack), it _IS_ a full moon right now. Makes you wonder :-) :-) :-) -- dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ....... !harvard!xait!lakart!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%lakart.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) (07/22/89)
In <4962@arcturus> Wade Guthrie wrote: >.... My question is this, what would >you, the programmer, consider part of the ideal C programming environment >I would certainly include: > - make > - a symbolic debugger > - error (on UNIX -- inserts comments which are error msgs.) > - a C interpereter (which can call compiled sub-modules) > - a C compiler (of-course) > - vi > - curses (no flames, please) > >what else would you include (it doesn't have to exist) ? I am anxiously >awaiting the response. One of the most usefull things taht I find is the Source Code Control System (SCCS) or its equivalent. A lot of people that I have talked to are not that aware of just how powerfull this can be when used with a bit of creative thought. It is, of course, invaluable if you are trying to maintain different releases of software in a "published" software system, but even in a personal development environment, it can be very usefull in letting you track the evolution of a module and know what pieces/versions are in place in a given program. A second thing that I find usefull is one of the graphical directory viewers/shell interfaces that lets you define hot keys and annotate the files in a directory tree. (What!? you don't have one? Write it! I did.) The third addition is NetNews. Without the wonderfull discussions that appear here, I'd fall into all sorts of traps and errors, and would be writing non-portable applications, and not have all sorts of useful tools. -- Greg Woodbury. What do you mean by "not everyone thinks the way I do"?
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (07/22/89)
In article <4962@arcturus> evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes: > [What is in the ideal C environment?] and so far, we've been told: make, symbolic debugger, error, C interpreter, C compiler, vi/emacs, curses, RCS/SCCS, diff, perl, tcsh/bash (and no doubt others winging their way towards Nottingham even as I type). You will all realise that a PDP 11/44 is not an ideal environment, no matter what titbits are added to the software; but in over a dozen years of C programming I have *never* *used* on Tuck: adb/sdb, error, C interp, vi/emacs, RCS/SCCS, perl, tcsh/bash; indeed, only "adb" and "rcs" of this list actually exist on the machine. I have to report that I have never missed any of 'em, except "perl" (which is too big to Yacc). "*grep" and "lint" should be added very near the top of the list, and a cross-referencer (ours is called "xref") is sometimes useful. Another *major* aid to productivity is the LaserWriter together with software (ours is called "ascps") for listing programs thereto in 4-up or 8-up (16-up is going a little far, but possible) format, thus getting (typically) 448 lines of code per sheet, and enabling surprisingly large chunks of program to be viewed as a unit. -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
dan@oresoft.uu.net (Daniel Elbaum) (07/23/89)
In article <63786@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: >In article <660040@hpcll10.HP.COM>, pld@hpcll10 (Paul L. Dineen) writes: >> >> echo "Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs..." >>comp.editors > >$ echo "Scrap vi and replace it with Emacs..." >>alt.flame [The S/N ration is getting perilously high, so:] vi? emacs? TECO!!? What weenies! Scrap 'em all and replace 'em with cat! [or, better yet, rewrite the tty driver so that everything from a line beginning with '#' to a line ending with '}' gets dumped to a file called 'foo.c' and the compiler invoked automatically]
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (07/23/89)
In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact >of other things like compilers, but in many environments, >personal productivity is not the highest measure. What is? Conformity? -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (07/23/89)
In article <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > But, if you're a system administrator, *don't* force your users to > scrap their favorite environments unless it's necessary to preserve > consistency of your product. I've had the experience of working on a > system where the sysadmin wouldn't *allow* me to use emacs (which was > on the system, but available only to users with a `documented need') > because `vi is better, anyway.' Annoying, at best; crippling, at > worst. One must be careful with this kind of statement. Certainly, there is a benefit if everybody can use the tools with which they are most comfortable. However, a company doesn't have to be producing a "product" to make restrictions on tools relevant. How about this one: In an office with a lot of people using spreadsheets, databases, word processors, everybody uses Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and WordPerfect. Everybody is happy. Then somebody is hired who is realy comfortable with some other set of tools. He tears into everything and becomes really productive, and everybody is still happy. Then he leaves for whatever reason, and now nobody can figure out any of his stuff. They can't run payroll, read any of his WP files, etc. Then the new guy wonders why the management says "you will use *these* tools." Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact of other things like compilers, but in many environments, personal productivity is not the highest measure. Steve P.S. - Sorry to be a wet blanket :-( -- Stephen J. Friedl / V-Systems, Inc. / Santa Ana, CA / +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy / friedl@vsi.com / {attmail, uunet, etc}!vsi!friedl ---> vsi!bang!friedl <-- NEW "Friends don't let friends run Xenix" - me
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/17/89)
In article <4726@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org.UUCP (Steve Lamont) writes: >>Whether somebody uses emacs or vi doesn't really have the impact >>of other things like compilers, but in many environments, >>personal productivity is not the highest measure. > >What is? Conformity? Group productivity. Which, in an environment where people sometimes have to work on each other's code, demands a certain amount of standardization. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu