peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/26/89)
Has anyone actually had a good experience with one of these? I've used language-oriented editors and structure-chart code generators, and I've found neither to be worth the time or money. -- 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.
fischer@iesd.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (04/01/89)
In article <3565@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Has anyone actually had a good experience with one of these? I've used >language-oriented editors and structure-chart code generators, and I've >found neither to be worth the time or money. Check out the AI and LISP litterature. The InterLisp people *love* their structure editor, with DWIM (do-what-I-mean) interface and all that (See [1]). Lots of research have gone into language-based editor, and many people find these editors to be very good. Me? I use Gnu Emacs, and haven't seen a language-based editor worth the effort. It's all a matter of taste. Choice of editor is, after all, one of the most *personal* things there is. /Lars [1] Erik Sandewall: "Programming in an Interactive Environment: The Lisp Experience", in David R. Barstow and Howard E. Shrobe and Erik Sandewall: "Interactive Programming Environments", McGraw-Hill, 1984, pp 31-80. This guy really love InterLisp and it's editor. The article is followed by a letter from Richard M Stallman (creator of Emacs), stating that structure oriented editors are No Good, and a letter by Sandawall stating that RMS is All Wrong. Great fun! -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci., University of Aalborg Strandvejen 19, DK-9000 Aalborg, DENMARK Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke