comp.lang.php archive
Re: What IDE are you using?
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 03:23:54 CEST
Oli Filth wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria said the following on 24/10/2005 22:15:
>
>> Oli Filth wrote:
>>
>>>> True, but OTOH, code completion makes people lazy. Text editors
>>>> force you to remember functions, which I think is a benefit.
>>>
>>> Are you serious?? ;)
>>>
>>> Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
>>> hundreds/thousands of functions?
>>
>> Of what benefit is there to be using functions that you don't know
>> intimately?!?
>
> Sure, you should know what they do and what you're trying to achieve
> by using them, but knowing whether it's xml_parser_create() or
> XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or equally, whether it's
> strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack, $needle)) is nothing
> but an exercise in trivia.
No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...
> Of course, you can flick to the online manual and find out, but that
> must be at least 20 times slower (not to mention disruptive to the
> coding "flow") than simply typing the first few letters into an IDE
> and then pressing Tab for auto-complete (or the equivalent).
Perhaps - but it ain't worth losing all of the functionality and
flexibility of XEmacs - at least not to me...
>> Perhaps it's clearest benefit is the realization that any such
>> library that has hundreds/thousands of functions is way to complex to
>> be using!
>
> Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily complex...
I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word
"necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word "unnecessarily".
>>> You might as well be programming in assembler if you like it raw! :)
>>
>>
>> Assembler would be quicker! Running that is. And yes some people
>> still program in assembler. http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm
>
> Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.
Well if you read the page you would see he write *all* of his
applications in assembly...
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Oli Filth wrote:
<blockquote cite="midjle7f.381$sA4.260@newsfe2-win.ntli.net" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria said the following on 24/10/2005 22:15:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Oli Filth wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">True, but OTOH, code completion makes
people lazy. Text editors force you to remember functions, which I
think is a benefit.
<br>
</blockquote>
Are you serious?? ;)
<br>
<br>
Where's the benefit in having to remember the exact syntax for
hundreds/thousands of functions?<br>
</blockquote>
Of what benefit is there to be using functions that you don't know
intimately?!?
<br>
</blockquote>
Sure, you should know what they do and what you're trying to achieve by
using them, but knowing whether it's xml_parser_create() or
XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or equally, whether it's
strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack, $needle)) is nothing
but an exercise in trivia.
<br>
</blockquote>
No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...<br>
<blockquote cite="midjle7f.381$sA4.260@newsfe2-win.ntli.net" type="cite">Of
course, you can flick to the online manual and find out, but that must
be at least 20 times slower (not to mention disruptive to the coding
"flow") than simply typing the first few letters into an IDE and then
pressing Tab for auto-complete (or the equivalent).
<br>
</blockquote>
Perhaps - but it ain't worth losing all of the functionality and
flexibility of XEmacs - at least not to me...<br>
<blockquote cite="midjle7f.381$sA4.260@newsfe2-win.ntli.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Perhaps it's clearest benefit is the
realization that any such library that has hundreds/thousands of
functions is way to complex to be using!
<br>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily complex...
<br>
</blockquote>
I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word
"necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word
"unnecessarily".<span></span><br>
<blockquote cite="midjle7f.381$sA4.260@newsfe2-win.ntli.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">You might as well be programming in
assembler if you like it raw! :)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Assembler would be quicker! Running that is. And yes some people still
program in assembler. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm">http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.
<br>
</blockquote>
Well if you read the page you would see he write <b>all</b> of his
applications in assembly...<br>
</body>
</html>
Received on Mon Nov 21 02:49:10 2005