Hacker News Reader

If you have to use an IDE to program, you're not programming in the language, you're programming the IDE.

There are many times I have to log into remote systems and all I have are nano or vi. Not even emacs. If I have IDE-dependancy, I'm up a creek without a paddle.

If you're hot-patching code in a remote environment, you have much bigger problems than "I don't have an IDE!".

I use an IDE--and for many languages, ex. Java, Scala, and C#, would say I have to--because my time is worth something to me.

I use an IDE--and for many languages, ex. Java, Scala, and C#, would say I have to--because my time is worth something to me.

For the languages you've mentioned. Java and C# do you really have any other option, but to use an IDE? Its like, goes without saying and assumed that you are and every body is programming with an IDE.

In case of Java. You must know eclipse today is nearly a part of the language and not a separate tool.

I can write Java without an IDE. It's not that hard--it just takes additional time. Valuable time that I could spend writing other code or sleeping or drinking beer.

The assumption that it would be Eclipse, however, is hilarious.

You aren't really "programming the IDE" since you are using the same language as you would be if you used something more like vim.

You may be used to a workflow that a particular IDE emphasizes but that doesn't mean that they couldn't muddle through with an editor + command line tools if required.

Sure you might have to read some more documentation but I would argue that you are still using what is in essence an "IDE" just without the "I" since you are using a more loosely coupled set of tools.

At it's core an IDE is usually just a text editor with a few buttons that run scripts anyway. Whether you happen to call them from BASH or a GUI is largely inconsequential.

There may be people who are hopelessly lost without an IDE but more than likely it's just that it's that IDE they learned at school/their last job because they were focusing more on learning the code than learning Unix commands.

People are naturally afraid of things that are unfamiliar but given time and a push in the right direction anybody capable of writing a program should be able to pick up these skills.

  but that doesn't mean that they couldn't muddle through
  with an editor + command line tools if required.

Anecdotal evidence is not a proof, but my empirical observation suggests otherwise.

There is, unfortunately, an un-ignorable set of IDE users who cannot be bothered into reading documentation about the language (and I am not talking about support tools manuals). They feel entitled that the IDE should take care of those "details". For this crowd, IDE becomes a necessity and my claim is that its an accidental or an artificial necessity. Not having an IDE may slow you down but it should not stop you, and that is exactly what I have seen time and again.

I am fine with them using any of their preferred tools but they should have some idea of whats going on underneath, hence my two use cases for an IDE. If you know what you are doing, by all means use an IDE.

If someone has a pathological aversion to documentation then relying on an IDE may be more of a symptom. However quality of documentation for programming tools/languages varies so much that I can understand where this may come from if you have mainly been exposed to the bad kind.

Plus sometimes it is nice to have a bit of "magic" to do some of the work for you when you have something you need done on a deadline and don't have time to grok the details of everything. It can be useful to go back and try and grok some of the details later but you won't usually grasp this until you experience the pain of working with an incomplete understanding first hand.

I have also met programmers who are almost the complete opposite of IDE addicts. Usually people who come from a PHP/Javascript background and have become used to doing everything using EditPad and debugging with echo statements. It's often just as difficult to make these people realise that they could save time and gain more power by looking into more sophisticated tools whether they are parts of an IDE or command line tools.

I don't mind writing C++ or python or javascript in mcedit or kate (sorry, I just can't get used to vim nor emacs, I tried).

But Java is special, try to code Java without an IDE. It's possible, but it's PITA. Typing org.something.somethingElse.somethingEvenMoreElse.ClassINeed and looking it up for every class you need will kill you. Even importing org.something * from every library won't help, you still need to know subpackages path to each class, and most libraries have quite huge depth and branching factor :).

Do you believe that a decent programmer can and should be able to work well enough without a text editor? If not, what do you see as the difference?

If you claim you do not see a difference between an editor and an IDE I believe you are just trolling. Not sure if I should feed you. One is a general and a language agnostic tool and promote skills that are largely transferable across languages and platforms whereas the other is a language specific and a limited tool that is likely to be absent for new languages.

Text editors are not completely language agnostic if you want to use features like syntax highlighting as somebody had to add syntax for a particular language to your editor of choice.

Also IDEs like eclipse are faily language agnostic, of course the tool support is better for some languages rather than others.

I use eclipse for PHP but I only really use it as a text editor (along with some of the features that help me navigate the code easily), all the debugging etc is done server-side anyway.

Argumentation note: claiming you have an unpopular opinion and then leaping to call people trolls so you can refuse to engage them is pretty poor form.

Of course I see a difference, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. I should clarify that by "text editor" I mean something above the level of ed or nano (though I'm happy to make a similar argument for these too): language-aware features in vim or Emacs such as auto-indenting, syntax highlighting and ctags support are not "transferable across languages" unless someone does the work to implement them: witness Emacs's lack of C++11 support.

Expecting e.g. auto-completion to work cross-language in vim but claiming that debugging in Eclipse in inherently language specific flies in the face both of experience (I personally have used debuggers in Eclipse for Python, Scala, and Java, and I know others exist) and also common sense; both are fully extensible via code, and while Eclipse's support for Java is better than the other languages, it's not tied to it in the way that e.g. the Python REPL is tied to Python. I think you'll find that Emacs's support for various languages differs in quality too.

editor and an IDE

I think the problem is that unless you're talking about using nano or notepad to code versus something else then you're trying to make your IDE sound superior over someone elses choice. When most people talk about being superior using an editor over an IDE, they usually mean using vim/emacs editor. The problem is that these days vim/emacs are IDEs. They may be lighter weight versus some other IDEs, but they are IDEs in functionality, plugins, and language support.

I haven't seen a vim plugin with refactoring or debugging comparable to IntelliJ or Eclipse yet. Do you know where I could find one?

I don't know if you're being snarky or asking a valid question. Either way, at no point did I say either had all the features of other IDEs. We also never defined IDE. Must they include refactoring and debugging tools to be considered? Debugging, depending on language, can be shelled out to the underlying tools. Refactoring is a hard one even in other modern day IDEs, so to say that vim/emacs are not IDEs because the lack refactoring means a lot of other IDEs also are not IDEs.

I meant it as a question. My normal response to people who want me to use an IDE is to ask what it does that vim does not do, and so far I have found that these two IDEs do these two things (at least, for Scala and Java. I would not expect any IDE to do correct refactoring of Python) that I have not yet made vim do.

I'm particularly interested in this right now because I've just moved from a C++ project to a Scala project, which meant moving from vim to an IDE.

Actually, I do believe this. I am not going to make the age old argument "real programmers program by toggling there OS into the front panel of the computer". However, I am going to argue good programmers can program in such an environment.

A good programmer can put together a system with nothing but a stack of note cards, a pencil and a good eraser.

Since good programmers can work in really archaic and restrictive environments should they? Of course not! You should give them the best tools for the job, they will work quicker. However, that doesn't mean they can't be amazingly productive with primitive tools (see the 1970s for instance).

Absolutely. To extend that answer: a programmer who can't work without an IDE probably:

- Can't work without an integrated debugger (i.e. can't diagnose a core, doesn't know how to attach a gdb to a running process, etc...)

- Can't diagnose problems outside of the development sandbox.

- Will demand access to expensive debugging tools instead of throwing some logging in.

- Doesn't code experimentally. Won't try things. Will ship the first version that works.

- Can't generate a simple test case for a bug, instead hammering away on a giant 200-file project someone else wrote.

- Often can't write a single-file, simple program from scratch AT ALL.

The analogy to a crutch is very apt. Yes, you can do great work with IDEs, and I'm sure people do. But 90% of the time an IDE user is using it only because it's all they know, and they're too lazy or unskilled to learn something different.

>>A good programmer can put together a system with nothing but a stack of note cards, a pencil and a good eraser.<<

A real programmer uses a pen.

Perhaps real programmers communicate telepathically, why should you need a pen as a crutch? Perhaps the other two gentlemen who think an IDE is a crutch will know the answer.

> I have come to believe that a decent programmer can and should be able to work well enough without an IDE.

Let me help you understand how absurd your statement is: "I have come to believe that a decent builder can and should be able to work well enough without power tools."

+1 (I hope +1 is ok as a response here.)

I have come to believe that a decent programmer can and should be able to work well enough without an IDE. Presence of an IDE should be a sufficient condition not a necessary condition and I see so much of the latter.

I have come to believe that a decent marathon runner can and should be able run well enough without shoes. Presence of shoes should be a sufficient condition not a necessary condition and I see so much of the latter.

You can run for like 50 meters without shoes. But you need shoes to run a marathon.

It makes zero sense to be developing a very big Java application without IDE's. And any one who is doing is simply for no reason under going self punishment.

You chose a poor analogy, barefoot long distance running is becoming rather popular lately. Many runners have completed marathons and clocked competitive times without shoes.

Just like how many programmers manage to program Java on Emacs today...

I mean does anybody have to bear that kind of a pain for no reason? And what you are going to accomplish doing that by the way?

I don't understand this self punishment and I don't see why this is even needed.

This only goes to show that you never worked in multi-site projects with millions of lines of code, which are integrated into enterprise processes and build infrastructures.

Trying to navigate or refactor code without the help on an IDE is just plain insane, regardless of the language being used.

You're perpetuating a silly myth which is along the same lines as the "language X sucks because it attracts Y-type programmers." Don't hate a valuable tool just because you've seen it misused. Also, don't assume that because a person uses or even prefers one development environment, that he or she is incapable of working outside that.

claims he knows scala .. there are no mature debugger for scala in eclipse. For him a eclipse plugin is a necessary condition.

What's wrong with that? If your favorite editor is vim with a host of preferred customization and plugins, and I tell you that at my company we only allow the use of TextPad, are you going to be happy about that? How is it wrong for a developer to prefer working from within a particular environment? I hear people talk about muscle memory and the power of vim, yet when the table is turned they cry about crutches and ineptitude.

And then I claim that you are indulging in a "silly" refutation of things that I have not said and you are conflating concepts of necessity and sufficiency. I guess we all have our trigger happy moments.

Also keep in mind that optimal decision making requires that prior probabilities be taken into account together with the costs of false posotives, cost of false negatives and the cost of acquiring evidence. Evidence does change posterior beliefs but but Bayes' rule essentially dictates that stronger claims (i.e. low prior) require stronger evidence.

refutation of things that I have not said

How's that? You're a technology bigot, plain and simple.

This is getting beyond silly, and I dislike long threads, but if you insist this is how:

I dont hate an IDE I advocate it. Circumstances matter.

I do not assume, I verify and learn from past experience. You may find this helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability

I have no problems about users preferring one tool over another. I re-iterate , "preference" is different from necessity.

I am not sure why I am re-repeating myself. Apparently it does not make a difference and dont expect that it would even now. Perhaps an integrated reading/comprehension environment is called for.

People who advocate IDEs don't define them as crutches, nor do they judge a developer for his preferred environment. You can add all the disclaimers you want, but you made your position clear. Stop trying to be condescending and own up to your words.