The new Komodo IDE 4.0 is the first unified workspace for end-to-end
development of dynamic web applications. A rich feature set for client-
side Ajax languages such as CSS, HTML, JavaScript and XML, coupled
with advanced support for dynamic languages such as Perl, PHP, Python,
Ruby and Tcl, enables developers to quickly and easily create robust
web apps. Komodo is the first IDE to provide professional debugging
tools for Ruby and Rails application development. The Ruby interactive
shell is available separately or from within debugging sessions.
Komodo is the IDE for Ruby and Ruby on Rails!
http://www.activestate.com/products/komodo_ide/more_information.p
zoat wrote:
Well … I have Komodo 4.0, but I haven’t really attempted to develop a
whole GUI-based application with it yet. But I have to disagree that
it’s the first “unified workspace for end-to-end development of dynamic
web applications.” I’d put a combination of KDevelop and Quanta ahead of
Komodo, and I’m pretty sure Eclipse is as good or better. I ended up
picking Komodo over KDevelop for two reasons:
-
KDevelop and its friends, QtRuby, QtDesigner, Korundum and Kommander,
really work well only on Linux and are really integrated well only with
the KDE desktop. Komodo, on the other hand, works with all of the Linux
desktops, and supports Windows a boatload better, especially if you are
using the ActiveState Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk and other tools. -
I had a lot of trouble getting KDevelop to sync up with my RubyForge
projects. I gave up on it after a day or so. Komodo picked up on them
right out of the box. All I had to do was start Komodo in the directory,
and it found the CVS stuff and just worked.
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
I apologize
in advance if I offend anyone on this list. My post below is more a rant
than a question.
Yes I agree that Komodo is
a very nice IDE. When I am teaching programming one, I find that many of
my students get so involved with using the lasted IDE ; that they lose
sight of the project they should be working on. I suggest to my students
to use either Vi or emacs to get the job done.
Beginning programmers
should concentrate solely on the basics of programming. It seems to me,
that the next generation of programmers expect the newest and latest IDE
to write the code for them. More than once a student has come to me with
simple nesting errors that was missed by the IDE they were using. Each
of us here as been bitten at once by the dangling Else error using
C++. One of my students debated with me over this very problem
because the IDE he was using did not catch this error.
Come on Spring
Break
Sam
On 2/23/07, Servando G. [email protected] wrote:
programming.
I read an interesting blog post about this recently. Damn. I would have
linked
it if I could.
Its different when you are learning at the same time as having to get a
job
done. You have to compromise between tool-assisted results and getting
enough foundation skills to grok what you have actually completed.
But I recommend and even actively steer people away from IDEs. You need
to know where files go etc. and why thats important. Programming editors
are what you want at the start - syntax colouring, run code from editor,
and
see results in editor is what you want. Debugger would be nice in some
platforms
where that is essential.
To all the people who learn Ruby in my sphere of influence - I say use
SCiTe
(on windows), IRB or Notepad++ (windows).
I am also a command-line type of guy when I am learning rails. I use
RoRed
to organise the files a bit (there are a lot - too much for a
programming editor)
but thats it. When I learn it, yeah I will use a big IDE that suits.
I am also a command-line type of guy when I am learning rails. I use
RoRed
to organise the files a bit (there are a lot - too much for a
programming editor)
but thats it. When I learn it, yeah I will use a big IDE that suits.
I’ve “discovered” my stance on this recently. I raelly like to
understand things properly, because then I know what to do. I’m very
poor at remembering random stuff, so I need things that I can
understand.
If an IDE (or any tool, really), presents a layer and interface that is
complete and consistent, that is, it does what is needed, and underlying
implementation details don’t poke through and spoil the facad, then I’m
very happy using it.
The two problems with that are either: when you need to do something
that’s not supported, or when the abstraction provided by the interface
breaks down.
For this reason, I like IDEs that do what they do well, and just work. I
really liked code warrior, and I love using irb because what it does is
consistant. It’s horrible when you can’t understand what they’re doing
because they’re showing you a fractured image of the underlying reality.
What I’d really like to see is a programming environment where the IDE
isn’t a cunning layer over the underlying reality, but where it’s an
equally valid interpretation of the data. Then you can work at what ever
level you like, and see what ever details you like. This isn’t going to
happen while we’re still storing our programs and data as flat text
files though, in my opinion.
Cheers,
B
I bought it, too. It is pretty nice.
It isn’t the end all for IDEs, but it supports both Ruby and Perl, and
every OS on which I would ever end up working for my job.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:59:30PM +0900, Richard C. wrote:
Beginning programmers should concentrate solely on the basics of
programming.
Thanks, Richard, for quoting as plain text. I wouldn’t have responded
if the HTML email was all I had to work with.
But I recommend and even actively steer people away from IDEs. You need
to know where files go etc. and why thats important. Programming editors
are what you want at the start - syntax colouring, run code from editor, and
see results in editor is what you want. Debugger would be nice in some
platforms
where that is essential.
That’s pretty much where I sit, too.
To all the people who learn Ruby in my sphere of influence - I say use SCiTe
(on windows), IRB or Notepad++ (windows).
I was actually surprised to see that the OP was steering beginner
students toward vi or emacs to keep their attention on the programming
rather than the tool. Yes, you actually see all your code in vi or
emacs, whereas you don’t with an IDE – but you also have to learn a
new, complex editing environment that is probably strange and arcane to
you if you come from a mostly GUI background (as most coders do these
days). I love Vim, and use it for almost everything I do, but I was
surprised to read that a GUI text editor (GUI versions of Vim and emacs
don’t exactly count for this case) wasn’t being recommended.
SciTE is one of the best GUI code editors out there, I think. It’s
certainly my favorite. It’s also not just a Windows editor. It’s
available on Linux and FreeBSD as well (I have no idea whether it’s
available for other OSes such as NetBSD, OpenBSD, or Plan 9). In fact,
the availability of the same text editor across multiple platforms is a
major positive that cannot be claimed for certain other editors, like
Notepad++.
I am also a command-line type of guy when I am learning rails. I use RoRed
to organise the files a bit (there are a lot - too much for a
programming editor)
but thats it. When I learn it, yeah I will use a big IDE that suits.
I’ll probably still be using Vim for editing and bash for my file
browser when I get my Rails skills nailed down.
On Feb 23, 12:28 pm, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
“equally valid interpretation of the data.” Perhaps you could
elaborate.
In Microsoft’s Enterprise Manager for their SQL Server (and in several
other apps of theirs), you can create a complex SQL query via a
combination of graphical table joins and filling out information in a
grid. As you do this, you see the SQL statement being fleshed out in
text. The graphical representation drives the SQL.
However, you can ALSO edit the SQL text directly, and (provided you
haven’t done something illegal, or that can’t be represented) the
graph and grid update when you change the raw code. The SQL drives the
graphical representation.
I’m totally guessing, but I think this is an analog to what the OP is
describing. An IDE that doesn’t try to take over the way you work, but
is a valid alternative view of the same underlying code, that doesn’t
prevent you from doing raw coding when you want to.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:11:53AM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
What I’d really like to see is a programming environment where the IDE
isn’t a cunning layer over the underlying reality, but where it’s an
equally valid interpretation of the data. Then you can work at what ever
level you like, and see what ever details you like. This isn’t going to
happen while we’re still storing our programs and data as flat text
files though, in my opinion.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean about an editor/IDE providing an
“equally valid interpretation of the data.” Perhaps you could
elaborate.
I’m extremely hesitant to go along with anything that eliminates flat
text files as a means of data storage when writing code, though. Plain
text is our best defense against data obsolescence and vendor lock-in.
Servando G. wrote:
Beginning programmers should concentrate solely on the basics of
programming.
Oh for the love of god, not THIS again.
Programming and compilerwrangling are separate skills. One doesn’t teach
you a thing about the other. The examles you present are merely
anecdotal evidence and mostly unrelated, since vi sure as heck won’t
catch more errors than IDEA will for me.
At least I consider the basics of programming to be skill at abstraction
and problem solving. The technicalities of getting the computer to do
what you think it should are secondary.
David V.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:40:05AM +0900, Phrogz wrote:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean about an editor/IDE providing an
haven’t done something illegal, or that can’t be represented) the
graph and grid update when you change the raw code. The SQL drives the
graphical representation.I’m totally guessing, but I think this is an analog to what the OP is
describing. An IDE that doesn’t try to take over the way you work, but
is a valid alternative view of the same underlying code, that doesn’t
prevent you from doing raw coding when you want to.
I don’t think that:
- requires using a data format other than plain text
- would work so well with turing-complet programming languages
(though it sounds interesting for query languages and the like)
Chad P. wrote:
I’m extremely hesitant to go along with anything that eliminates flat
text files as a means of data storage when writing code, though. Plain
text is our best defense against data obsolescence and vendor lock-in.
Especially when you work on both Linux and Windows and have tools that
seamlessly and transparently deal with the two different end-of-line
conventions.
:set fileformat=dos
er …
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
But many times people find Vi or emacs just as hard to learn if not
harder as an IDE. I did at first. Ctrl this, Alt that, how many keys
was that again? Four!? It was just completely alien to my brain.
I usually give my students something like SCiTe or Notepad++ to start
out with. Keep it simple and familiar. If you want them to focus on
the basics, then give them someting that is familiar, and as such gets
out of their way, but also makes them work harder to keep their code
formatted and working. Not only will they appreciate IDEs/code
sensitive editors later on, they will be able to handle their editor’s
quirkiness better and more intuitively.
–Jeremy
On 2/23/07, Servando G. [email protected] wrote:
programming. It seems to me, that the next generation of programmers expect
Sam
–
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/
My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/
My blogs:
On 2/23/07, Servando G. [email protected] wrote:
Beginning programmers should concentrate solely on the basics of
programming.
Why is why a text editor isn’t the best thing either - the “basics of
programming” should ideally let you write code, without worrying about
setting up your environment and include paths properly, getting the
right commands to compile/run it, etc. You should be open up an IDE,
type in some code, and hit a button to have it run, interact with the
debugger, etc.
martin
On Feb 23, 8:11 am, [email protected] wrote:
What I’d really like to see is a programming environment where the IDE
isn’t a cunning layer over the underlying reality, but where it’s an
equally valid interpretation of the data. Then you can work at what ever
level you like, and see what ever details you like. This isn’t going to
happen while we’re still storing our programs and data as flat text
files though, in my opinion.
Uhm… Smalltalk anyone? 
Martin DeMello wrote:
On 2/23/07, Servando G. [email protected] wrote:
Beginning programmers should concentrate solely on the basics of
programming.Why is why a text editor isn’t the best thing either - the “basics of
programming” should ideally let you write code, without worrying about
setting up your environment and include paths properly, getting the
right commands to compile/run it, etc. You should be open up an IDE,
type in some code, and hit a button to have it run,
Like in Scite, you mean?
On 2/23/07, John W. [email protected] wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:11 am, [email protected] wrote:
What I’d really like to see is a programming environment where the IDE
isn’t a cunning layer over the underlying reality, but where it’s an
equally valid interpretation of the data. Then you can work at what ever
level you like, and see what ever details you like. This isn’t going to
happen while we’re still storing our programs and data as flat text
files though, in my opinion.Uhm… Smalltalk anyone?
Yep, to the OP on this subset of the thread, you’ve just done
Smalltalk in a nutshell, basically. Although I must admit I’ve never
actually seen syntax-coloring in Smalltalk. It probably exists,
though.
Servando, why don’t you just ban IDEs in your classroom?
I always seek the type of perspective that allows me to rise above a
contentious debate, but with the IDE/text editor thing, I’ve never
managed to do it. I still haven’t even been able to figure out why
anybody would ever even try with an IDE. I’ve tried, but only for
the sake of giving the other side a chance, and if that was the only
reason people ever used IDEs, there wouldn’t be sides to begin with.
There must be a good reason for using an IDE, but I bet you even the
most staunch pro-IDE advocate is still going to say that IDEs are for
people who already know what they’re doing.
Tell them they have to walk before they can run and take their IDEs
away.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:28:51PM +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:
debugger, etc.
Alex Y. makes a good point, re: SciTE, in answer to this. My
immediate thought, though, was that this isn’t necessarily the realm of
the tools you use – for instance, Ruby mostly solves these problems
pretty handily, regardless of what kind of editor you’re using.
On Feb 25, 4:02 pm, “Giles B.” [email protected] wrote:
Smalltalk in a nutshell, basically. Although I must admit I’ve never
actually seen syntax-coloring in Smalltalk. It probably exists,
though.
In Squeak, at least, coloring is built in to the default Browser in
the same place where you select the prettyPrint option. Don’t recall
off the top of my head what exactly the option is called, and don’t
have a VM on this machine…
–
Regards,
John W.