Forum: Ruby Which IDE is good?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Tanushree B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 11:42
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,
For writting ruby which IDE is best and why?
When i installed ruby-184-16 on my window machine,it comes with 2 IDE.
Freeride and Scite.Which one i should use.
Jia Z. (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 14:45
Tanushree B. wrote:
> Hi,
> For writting ruby which IDE is best and why?
> When i installed ruby-184-16 on my window machine,it comes with 2 IDE.
> Freeride and Scite.Which one i should use.


I prefer to Scite.
It is more light weighted.
Vlad GALU (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 16:46
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/10/06, Tanushree B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Hi,
> For writting ruby which IDE is best and why?
> When i installed ruby-184-16 on my window machine,it comes with 2 IDE.
> Freeride and Scite.Which one i should use.

   Give Mondrian a shot. It's also light and it's also feature-rich
enough to make your life easy.
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 17:53
(Received via mailing list)
Tanushree B. wrote:
> Hi,
> For writting ruby which IDE is best and why?
> When i installed ruby-184-16 on my window machine,it comes with 2 IDE.
> Freeride and Scite.Which one i should use.

Neither?

I use gvim on WinXP.  Lightweight, super customizable, but (most
important) suits my brain and fingers.

Search the ruby-talk archives for this topic; it comes up every two
months or so.  You have many choices, so pick one that really helps and
gets out of the way.



--
James B.

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
ReggW (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 18:58
Tanushree B. wrote:
> Hi,
> For writting ruby which IDE is best and why?
> When i installed ruby-184-16 on my window machine,it comes with 2 IDE.
> Freeride and Scite.Which one i should use.

 RadRails (www.radrails.org) if you plain on doing any Rails
programming.
 RadRails is based on Eclipse, RDT and custom develpment.
 (doesn't have HTML code complete, code complete from classes are hit
and miss,
  doesn't really allow you to add other cool Eclipse plugins :(   )

 Eclipse with a Ruby on Rails setup (you have to set it up manually)
 http://www.napcs.com/howto/railsonwindows.html
 (Not bad)


 Eclipse with the Ruby plugin
(RDT)(http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net)if you want to just do Ruby
programming.
 (Not bad)

 JEdit is "ok", it has good code completion and intergrated help, but
the IDE is a bit difficult to setup, configure and use.
(Not good for Rails projects because the ProjectViewer will not pull in
your entire rails directory structure)

Arachno Ruby, not quiet ready for primetime and it also uses a hacked
Ruby interpreter. (not good...)

SapphireSteel is a new IDE plugin that is in the works
(http://www.sapphiresteel.com) for Visual Studio that has a lot of
promise.

I wouldn't suggest FreeRide if you are just starting out with Ruby.

I never used Mondrian, seemed like a lot of trouble just to get it to
work.

People please correct me if my accessments are incorrect.

Thanks
Wayne V. (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 20:56
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/10/06, ReggW <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Arachno Ruby, not quiet ready for primetime and it also uses a hacked
> Ruby interpreter. (not good...)

I don't understand the "not quite ready for primetime".  I've been
using ArachnoRuby (Windows version), http://www.ruby-ide.com to do
real, paid work in Ruby for well over a year now.  Many of the
versions I used were betas, and I encountered a number of minor
glitches (not surprising for betas), but nothing that got in the way
of me getting my work done.

Arachno's changes to the Ruby interpreter are mainly to speed up the
debugger, and it works great.  I've tried almost all the other IDEs
mentioned in this thread, and the ones I tried were all way too slow
to debug a large program.  When you have a Ruby program that runs for
30 minutes before it encounters a problem, and using the debugger
slows you down by a factor of 10 or 100, it becomes impossible to
debug the program (unless you can wait a week!).  Arachno's debugger
runs at almost full speed (maybe there's  50% slowdown).  I never saw
any problems due to the interpreter changes.

Wayne
Kerry B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 23:06
(Received via mailing list)
On 10 Jun 2006, at 15:58, ReggW wrote:

>  RadRails (www.radrails.org) if you plain on doing any Rails
> programming.
>  RadRails is based on Eclipse, RDT and custom develpment.
>  (doesn't have HTML code complete, code complete from classes are hit
> and miss,
>   doesn't really allow you to add other cool Eclipse plugins :(   )

Am I missing something here? Surely you can just install RadRails as
a plugin to a normal Eclipse install, then you can add in as many
other plugins as you like.

Kerry
ReggW (Guest)
on 2006-06-11 01:51
Kerry B. wrote:

> Am I missing something here? Surely you can just install RadRails as
> a plugin to a normal Eclipse install, then you can add in as many
> other plugins as you like.

Sure you can, but then it's no longer RadRails is it?
I am talking about RadRails specifically in my qoute.

But it is definitely another option. (can't believe I missed that one)

To elaborate on what Kerry is talking about, you can download Eclipse
(www.eclipse.org)

Then download the RadRails plugin
(http://radrails.sourceforge.net/update) from within Eclipse.

This way you have the ability to use all of the many different plugins
that are available to Eclipse and have RadRails capabilities.
(Guest)
on 2006-06-11 13:54
(Received via mailing list)
James B. wrote:
>
> Search the ruby-talk archives for this topic; it comes up every two
> months or so.  You have many choices, so pick one that really helps and
> gets out of the way.
>
>

Exactly.  the (relatively) short list: Eclipse and all its children,
vim, emacs and all its children, komodo, textmate, arachno-Ruby,
FreeRIDE, jedit.

http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/CodingInRuby
Tanushree B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-12 08:05
(Received via mailing list)
Hello Friends,

I just started ruby programming  using Scite.
After running a program It shows like this.


ruby callcreateacc.rb
Loaded suite callcreateacc
Started

Finished in 0.0 seconds.

0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors
Exit code: 0

What is this 0 tests,0 assertions and 0 failures.

When exactly it will be considered as 1 test.

Can anybody help me?
Son SonOfLilit (Guest)
on 2006-06-13 13:21
(Received via mailing list)
You seem to inherit from Test::Unit without defining any methods that
start
with "test_" is the inherited class... Read the Test::Unit
documentation.
Lothar S. (Guest)
on 2006-06-25 22:03
(Received via mailing list)
Hello ReggW,

R> Arachno Ruby, not quiet ready for primetime and it also uses a hacked
R> Ruby interpreter. (not good...)

Yes, if you try the very outdated 0.6.5 version but i just published
0.6.14 today. If you want to give it a try please read (and observer
for future updates):

http://www.ruby-ide.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6

And no, as long as the ruby core team don't came up with a C level API
for the debugger, having a patched ruby interpreter is a very good
thing. I would say that Arachno is still the only debugger that is able
to work reasonable well with Ruby on Rails (which means 50-200 times
faster - depending on the relation C<->Ruby - then Eclipse or Komodo).

And remember that using a debugger is not only for debugging. It also
helps you a lot when you want to discover what is the control flow,
what methods get called with what types of parameters, etc.
Especially for complex frameworks like Rails it is very very import.
Reggie M. (Guest)
on 2006-06-26 17:04
Lothar S. wrote:
>
> And no, as long as the ruby core team don't came up with a C level API
> for the debugger, having a patched ruby interpreter is a very good
> thing.

That's your opinion.
I just think anyone getting started with Ruby and an IDE should know
that your IDE is a hack.

Some people may be ok with that...I'm not.

Have you tried to implement you changes to the core team?
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-06-26 18:01
(Received via mailing list)
> Lothar S. wrote:
>>
>> And no, as long as the ruby core team don't came up with a C level API
>> for the debugger, having a patched ruby interpreter is a very good
>> thing.
>
> That's your opinion.
> I just think anyone getting started with Ruby and an IDE should know
> that your IDE is a hack.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say "has been modified to make it more
ameniable to connecting to a debugger"? Do these modifications cause
problems? Do they break the language in some way? Do they change the
"contract" defining the behaviour of a Ruby interpreter?

I've not used it, but desciring something as "a hack" is pretty
provocative, and implies a problem, but doesn't really say what the
problem.

Just curious,
  Benj
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.