Bruno S. wrote in post #978012:
redcar is awesome
use to install
$ gem install redcar
$ redcar install
$ redcar
Thanks for the reminder. I’ll check it out. As I’ve said elsewhere,
I’ll happily use a good IDE for Raila if I find one.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Xavier N. wrote in post #978074:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected] wrote:Oh, absolutely, but I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for
Rails is IMHO a bad choice.You’re wrong Mamen, not a bad choice at all. You may prefer a plain
editor, that’s fine, but that does not make other people’s choices
bad.
I see too many people addicted to IDEs as a crutch and unable to
function without them. That is bad.
When not used as a crutch, a good IDE is a joy. It makes life easier
and automates repetitive tasks in development. That is good.
However, Rails is not well suited to conventional IDEs. They make Rails
development harder. That is bad. They attract people who would use
them as crutches. That is bad. As far as I can see, they provide no
particular advantage to compensate for the annoyance they introduce.
That is very bad.
Therefore, using a conventional IDE for Rails development is a bad
choice. I think the issues here are fundamental enough that this ceases
to be a matter of taste.
So what? It’s not worth the clunky interface.
For you.
Right. That is a matter of taste.
But RubyMine has a lot of knowledge about Ruby on
Rails.Such as?
Such as? RM has dozens of features specific to Rails, you don’t even
know them, and you have all these strong opinions about choosing an
IDE as RM? Common!
I tried to use RubyMine. I really wanted to like it. I didn’t see the
point of it. What am I missing?
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected] wrote:
Oh, absolutely, but I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for
Rails is IMHO a bad choice.
You’re wrong Mamen, not a bad choice at all. You may prefer a plain
editor, that’s fine, but that does not make other people’s choices
bad.
So what? It’s not worth the clunky interface.
For you.
But RubyMine has a lot of knowledge about Ruby on
Rails.Such as?
Such as? RM has dozens of features specific to Rails, you don’t even
know them, and you have all these strong opinions about choosing an
IDE as RM? Common!
On 27 January 2011 20:08, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:
Michael P. wrote in post #977960:
I can code without a debugger integrated (or indeed, at all) - but I
don’t want to.If you were my client, and you responded “because I want it” when I
asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn’t get the feature.
Now that’s customer service! 
(but poor economics [1])
I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for
Rails is IMHO a bad choice.
I think you need to reconsider the difference between “discourage” and
“deny”… denying your customers features you don’t like is not the
same as discouraging them.
So…have you used RDB at the command line? What do you not like about
it?
Yes I have; before I started using Netbeans… and you call IDEs
“clunky”!
I was actually a little surprised when I started working
with Rails to find that IDEs provided no benefit – but that is the
case.
You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really
understand what you mean: how can an IDE not “suit” Rails?
It would help me if instead of saying “Don’t use IDEs or you’re all
cripples”, you explained how you work front-to-end to highlight how
features of IDEs [2] don’t give you any productivity benefit, while
using an IDE would hamper you.
[1] wants vs needs - Google Search
Sell to Wants, Not Needs | ZenBusiness Inc
[2] For me it’s the debugger and source control integration that boost
my productivity (even while having to wait for the rest of the bloated
app to limp along with me They’re pretty much the only things I
want [3] in addition to the syntax highlighting that every beefy text
editor offers.
[3] “want” again, not “need”. I want a black car over a pink one, I
don’t need a black car 
Michael P. wrote in post #978091:
On 27 January 2011 20:08, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:Michael P. wrote in post #977960:
I can code without a debugger integrated (or indeed, at all) - but I
don’t want to.If you were my client, and you responded “because I want it” when I
asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn’t get the feature.Now that’s customer service!
It’s excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they
want, and do not spend money on things they don’t want.
The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you
want something, you should still be able to explain why you want it,
not just “because I want it”.
I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for
Rails is IMHO a bad choice.I think you need to reconsider the difference between “discourage” and
“deny”… denying your customers features you don’t like is not the
same as discouraging them.
It’s not a question of features I don’t like. It’s a question of
features that can’t be justified. “Because I want it” is no
justification.
So…have you used RDB at the command line? What do you not like about
it?Yes I have; before I started using Netbeans… and you call IDEs
“clunky”!
Some IDEs are clunky. Some aren’t.
I’m addicted to GUI tools, but I love RDB’s command-line interface.
Editor integration would be pleasant, but I don’t really notice the lack
very strongly.
I was actually a little surprised when I started working
with Rails to find that IDEs provided no benefit – but that is the
case.You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really
understand what you mean: how can an IDE not “suit” Rails?
Excellent question. Conventional IDEs tend to be designed with “heavy”
languages like Java or Obj-C in mind, and it shows in the architecture.
As I see it, the primary benefits of conventional IDEs include:
As I see it, none of these features provide any significant benefit with
Rails:
It would help me if instead of saying “Don’t use IDEs or you’re all
cripples”, you explained how you work front-to-end to highlight how
features of IDEs [2] don’t give you any productivity benefit, while
using an IDE would hamper you.[1] wants vs needs - Google Search
Sell to Wants, Not Needs | ZenBusiness Inc[2] For me it’s the debugger and source control integration that boost
my productivity (even while having to wait for the rest of the bloated
app to limp along with me
want [3] in addition to the syntax highlighting that every beefy text
editor offers.[3] “want” again, not “need”. I want a black car over a pink one, I
don’t need a black car
Michael P. wrote in post #978091:
On 27 January 2011 20:08, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:Michael P. wrote in post #977960:
I can code without a debugger integrated (or indeed, at all) - but I
don’t want to.If you were my client, and you responded “because I want it” when I
asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn’t get the feature.Now that’s customer service!
It’s excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they
want, and do not spend money on things they don’t want.
The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you
want something, you should still be able to explain why you want it,
not just “because I want it”.
I try to discourage bad choices. Using an IDE for
Rails is IMHO a bad choice.I think you need to reconsider the difference between “discourage” and
“deny”… denying your customers features you don’t like is not the
same as discouraging them.
It’s not a question of features I don’t like. It’s a question of
features that can’t be justified. “Because I want it” is no
justification.
So…have you used RDB at the command line? What do you not like about
it?Yes I have; before I started using Netbeans… and you call IDEs
“clunky”!
Some IDEs are clunky. Some aren’t.
I’m addicted to GUI tools, but I love RDB’s command-line interface.
Editor integration would be pleasant, but I don’t really notice the lack
very strongly.
I was actually a little surprised when I started working
with Rails to find that IDEs provided no benefit – but that is the
case.You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really
understand what you mean: how can an IDE not “suit” Rails?
Excellent question. Conventional IDEs tend to be designed with “heavy”
languages like Java or Obj-C in mind, and it shows in the architecture.
As I see it, the primary benefits of conventional IDEs include:
As I see it, none of these features provide any significant benefit with
Rails:
So…Rails has no use for the big wins of IDEs. IDEs such as NetBeans
are huge, resource-intensive programs. They cripple developers by
encouraging dependence on them. They do not, as far as I can see, offer
any advantage at all for Rails development. Why use them?
I’ll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for
Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn’t provide?
It would help me if instead of saying “Don’t use IDEs or you’re all
cripples”, you explained how you work front-to-end to highlight how
features of IDEs [2] don’t give you any productivity benefit, while
using an IDE would hamper you.
See above. I use KomodoEdit (a good project-aware editor) with Ruby
and Haml syntax highlighting modules, along with GitX and 6 consoles
open in iTerm. One runs script/server, one runs autotest, and the rest
are available for random command-line tasks.
[2] For me it’s the debugger and source control integration that boost
my productivity (even while having to wait for the rest of the bloated
app to limp along with me
want [3] in addition to the syntax highlighting that every beefy text
editor offers.
NetBeans’ Git plugin is fantastic. I just don’t see it as fantastic
enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE.
BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn’t you still use its
Ruby support? And don’t you think someone is likely to take up
maintenance of the Rails tools?
[3] “want” again, not “need”. I want a black car over a pink one, I
don’t need a black car
But you can explain how black adds value for you – “I find pink ugly”,
“I live in a cold climate and so I want a color that absorbs heat”,
whatever.
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 January 2011 15:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:
If you were my client, and you responded “because I want it” when I
asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn’t get the feature.Now that’s customer service!
It’s excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they
want, and do not spend money on things they don’t want.
Again, I think you’re confusing needs and wants (and blurring it more
with your interpretation of what they need). They can hardly “get what
they want” if you also decide that they “wouldn’t get the feature”.
Either way, it’s academic, as how you manage your customer relations
is up to you (but if they really want those features that you and I
both know are pointless… if you don’t want to do it, send them my
way and I’ll give them a quote for the work
The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you
want something, you should still be able to explain why you want it,
not just “because I want it”.
Getting into psychology now… sometimes people can’t justify their
wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason).
You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really
understand what you mean: how can an IDE not “suit” Rails?
Interesting… but largely personal preference [1]… what you see as
“the primary benefits of conventional IDEs” is probably different to
what others may list. Or maybe the using the term “IDE” is a red
herring (as it may not mean the same to everyone), and really what I
mean when I say IDE is “the editing software I use to write my apps”.
(to me, any software with features more then editing and saving
plain-text files is starting on the road to IDE… some just
“integrate” more features than others)
I’ll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for
Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn’t provide?
I’ve already said - I want VCS and debugging integration.
NetBeans’ Git plugin is fantastic. I just don’t see it as fantastic
enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE.
Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin is fantastic enough to
saddle myself with the rest of it… personal preference again!
BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn’t you still use its
Ruby support? And don’t you think someone is likely to take up
maintenance of the Rails tools?
Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don’t really use the
“Rails” features anyway. It just seems disappointing to be at the end
of life for a product that’s been getting better and better. To know
it is never likely to get better still was just a spur to me to look
around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I’ve been
using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations
that I shall post separately)
[1] I think we should all agree that we will always know for
certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best.
We should also know we’ll never convince someone that made a
different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for
them than their choice.
I refer to this Dilbert cartoon:
http://bit.ly/hP9Bk1
Michael P. wrote in post #978365:
On 28 January 2011 15:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:If you were my client, and you responded “because I want it” when I
asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn’t get the feature.Now that’s customer service!
It’s excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they
want, and do not spend money on things they don’t want.Again, I think you’re confusing needs and wants (and blurring it more
with your interpretation of what they need).
I do understand the difference. I also understand that people think
they want things that, when questioned, they cannot explain why they
want nor provide any justification for. That’s the same as saying “I
want a pony”: sure, you may want it, but is it worth spending time and
effort on?
They can hardly “get what
they want” if you also decide that they “wouldn’t get the feature”.
You missed my point. I ask my clients why they want something, so I can
prioritize and understand how things fit together in their minds. I
wouldn’t be satisfied with receiving an answer of “because I want it” –
I’d dig deeper to see what the real reason was.
You shouldn’t be satisfied with giving an answer of “because I want
it” either. It’s a cheap shot, and, frankly, a cop-out. It tells me
that you haven’t even bothered to think about why you want a particular
feature, you just want it. Pony.
Either way, it’s academic, as how you manage your customer relations
is up to you (but if they really want those features that you and I
both know are pointless… if you don’t want to do it, send them my
way and I’ll give them a quote for the work
You waste your clients’ time and money on feature bloat?
The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you
want something, you should still be able to explain why you want it,
not just “because I want it”.Getting into psychology now… sometimes people can’t justify their
wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason).
Can’t justify their wants? Example?
(Note that I think “because it’s ugly” is in many cases a valid
justification.)
You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really
understand what you mean: how can an IDE not “suit” Rails?Interesting… but largely personal preference [1]… what you see as
“the primary benefits of conventional IDEs” is probably different to
what others may list.
OK, now I’m getting upset – not that you disagree with me, but at how
you’re choosing to argue. You asked me about why I think conventional
IDEs don’t suit Rails. I answered at some length. So far as I can
tell, instead of actually responding to my answer, you simply handwaved
it. If you disagree with what I wrote, please tell me what you disagree
with.
In other words, if you think others may list different key features,
then list some!
Or maybe the using the term “IDE” is a red
herring (as it may not mean the same to everyone), and really what I
mean when I say IDE is “the editing software I use to write my apps”.
(to me, any software with features more then editing and saving
plain-text files is starting on the road to IDE… some just
“integrate” more features than others)
I consider an IDE to start somewhere above a project-aware editor –
perhaps with things like build tools, project management, shell
integration, Rake task invocation, and so on. (KomodoEdit actually has
a very nice module that, by that definition, makes it an IDE for
developing its own extension modules.)
I’ll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for
Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn’t provide?I’ve already said - I want VCS and debugging integration.
So do I, other things being equal. But those two features alone are not
enough for me to incur the overhead of something like NetBeans.
NetBeans’ Git plugin is fantastic. I just don’t see it as fantastic
enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE.Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin is fantastic enough to
saddle myself with the rest of it… personal preference again!
Or the fact that Mercurial is harder to use than Git and needs one more
crutch.
Seriously, I wonder if you’d feel this way if you were using Git. GitX
is a marvelous standalone GUI tool; I am not sure that anything
comparable exists for Mercurial.
BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn’t you still use its
Ruby support? And don’t you think someone is likely to take up
maintenance of the Rails tools?Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don’t really use the
“Rails” features anyway.
THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU USING NETBEANS?!?
Perhaps I shouldn’t have shouted that; it just seems to me that you’re
saying you want to use a big heavy IDE that you don’t use 90% of the
features of. How can this be sane?
It just seems disappointing to be at the end
of life for a product that’s been getting better and better.
How would you know? As you’ve pointed out, you don’t even really use
it.
To know
it is never likely to get better
WTF? NB is actively looking for someone to take it over. Frankly, I’d
trust a group of Rails enthusiasts to make it better more than I’d trust
the notoriously unresponsive NB core team to do so.
still was just a spur to me to look
around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I’ve been
using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations
that I shall post separately)
Good. Then also please consider which of your “showstoppers” really
have to be showstoppers.
[1] I think we should all agree that we will always know for
certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best.
No. There are times when I am not sure.
We should also know we’ll never convince someone that made a
different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for
them than their choice.
Again no. I have done this many times.
I refer to this Dilbert cartoon:
http://bit.ly/hP9Bk1
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 January 2011 14:59, Marnen Laibow-Koser [email protected]
wrote:
I do understand the difference. I also understand that people think
they want things that, when questioned, they cannot explain why they
want nor provide any justification for. That’s the same as saying “I
want a pony”: sure, you may want it, but is it worth spending time and
effort on?
Again, just because people can’t explain, doesn’t make them wrong in
their desire. It may make it harder (or impossible) to agree with (as
a “rational” developer/programmer, with all the borderline-autistic
traits we possess), but it doesn’t mean some fundamental psychological
operation isn’t happening in their brains.
You waste your clients’ time and money on feature bloat?
Yup - if that’s what they want… even if I don’t like it (I have
produced some websites that I think look awful and/or have music
playing in the background - because that’s what they want despite my
protestations). It’s their money… I’d prefer to produce something
I’d like too, but at the end of the day…
sometimes people can’t justify their
wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason).Can’t justify their wants? Example?
I can’t explain why I want a girlfriend with certain physical
characteristics (wanted… I’m married now!) - hair colour, height,
skin-tone, etc. I know what I like, but I don’t know why… given a
choice, I’ll prefer one over another.
(Note that I think “because it’s ugly” is in many cases a valid
justification.)
…so you won’t accept “because” as an answer, but you will accept
“because I like/dislike it” - I think we’re saying almost the same
thing, and just boring anyone else reading this. I think your argument
would be more distinct from mine if you wanted people to give you
checklists of why they like/dislike (which seems to be what you
are asking me re: IDEs!
Interesting… but largely personal preference [1]… what you see as
“the primary benefits of conventional IDEs” is probably different to
what others may list.OK, now I’m getting upset
I’m sorry - I certainly don’t want to upset you; and I didn’t disagree
with you.
I read your answer, and it was long, and I will have to read through
it a few more times to fully digest it.
instead of actually responding to my answer, you simply handwaved
it. If you disagree with what I wrote, please tell me what you disagree
with.
I didn’t disagree - I agree that the list of things you think make an
IDE, and the things that list is good/bad for is the list you believe
is correct.
All I’ve said (ever said) is that other people may have other
opinions, and they can make their own minds up. I asked for the
clarification, because everytime someone mentions using an IDE in
their Rails development, you say “DON’T USE IDEs FOR RAILS!” and
accuse people of having marginal handicaps because of the tools they
use.
I consider an IDE to start somewhere above a project-aware editor
so that’s pretty similar territory to my definition then…
I’ll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for
Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn’t provide?I’ve already said - I want VCS and debugging integration.
So do I, other things being equal. But those two features alone are not
enough for me to incur the overhead of something like NetBeans.
But they are for me
However, if a “decent editor” got integrated VCS (specifically
Mercurial, but I’d consider switching to Git or something else if it
was what was integrated), debugging, and (much lower priority for me,
but my third-most-used feature) test running (and through the other
features, test debugging) then I’d drop the bloaty Netbeans like a
shot and jump to it. All the other features, whether I use them or
not, are just “gravy”.
NetBeans’ Git plugin is fantastic. I just don’t see it as fantastic
enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE.Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin is fantastic enough to
saddle myself with the rest of it… personal preference again!Or the fact that Mercurial is harder to use than Git and needs one more
crutch.
Strange. I don’t think Mercurial is harder than Git - I don’t think
either of them are hard… I’m happy to use command line hg… I just
prefer to have it in my editor (seeing what changes I have made to a
line at a glance in the editor is valuable to me).
Seriously, I wonder if you’d feel this way if you were using Git. GitX
is a marvelous standalone GUI tool; I am not sure that anything
comparable exists for Mercurial.
I don’t want standalone tools… I have the command line for that. I
want it in my editor pane.
BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn’t you still use its
Ruby support? And don’t you think someone is likely to take up
maintenance of the Rails tools?Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don’t really use the
“Rails” features anyway.THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU USING NETBEANS?!?
Because it integrates Mercurial and Debugging very nicely (have I not
mentioned that?
Perhaps I shouldn’t have shouted that; it just seems to me that you’re
saying you want to use a big heavy IDE that you don’t use 90% of the
features of. How can this be sane?
What if it isn’t sane (for you)? So what? How does that affect anyone
apart from me? I am more productive because things suit me better -
so it’s not insane from my point of view.
As an aside (and a not ideal analogy): I drive a big bloaty 4x4 for
the 2-days a year the British weather may demand it… possibly not
sane on an average day. But as fate would have it, shortly before
Christmas I had to get to the hospital with a very ill baby daughter
at 2am in a blizzard - the ambulance couldn’t get to us, but with
chains on, I could get to them.
I’m happy to bear the extra expense and bloat of this machine for the
features it offers me that I can’t get elsewhere. Being able to get
out of my village in almost any conditions is a feature I’m not
willing to give up, and neither is debugging
It just seems disappointing to be at the end
of life for a product that’s been getting better and better.How would you know? As you’ve pointed out, you don’t even really use
it.
sigh The product, Netbeans, has been getting better - the Mercurial
integration is quite new, and the debugging has gotten simpler in
newer releases. So what if I don’t use the “crutches” of Rake
integration, etc? Does that obviate my opinion of the product? (if so,
since you use none of them, how would you know any about it… (I’m
not trying to be snide; just saying we’re on the same ground - if you
try to undermine me with “how would you know?”, you’re falling too)
To know
it is never likely to get betterWTF? NB is actively looking for someone to take it over. Frankly, I’d
trust a group of Rails enthusiasts to make it better
When they find them…
still was just a spur to me to look
around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I’ve been
using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations
that I shall post separately)Good. Then also please consider which of your “showstoppers” really
have to be showstoppers.
Please stop asking me to stop liking what I like… it’s me getting
upset now 
[1] I think we should all agree that we will always know for
certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best.No. There are times when I am not sure.
I don’t believe you… I don’t think you ever make a choice for
yourself that you think is worse than the alternatives you could have
had (and don’t think about starting to wave altruism around
We should also know we’ll never convince someone that made a
different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for
them than their choice.Again no. I have done this many times.
hmmm… or maybe you just brow-beat them into submission rather than
“convincing” them - is it the same thing? :-p
On 29 Jan 2011, at 15:59, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
comparable exists for Mercurial.
On the subject of standalone GUI tools, I think both Tower
(http://www.git-tower.com/
) and Gitti (http://www.gittiapp.com/) beat GitX hands down. However,
I have to add that neither of those have been able to lure me away
from using Git in the terminal. Creature of habit I think.
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
Peter De Berdt wrote in post #978401:
On 29 Jan 2011, at 15:59, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
comparable exists for Mercurial.
On the subject of standalone GUI tools, I think both Tower
(http://www.git-tower.com/
) and Gitti (http://www.gittiapp.com/) beat GitX hands down.
I didn’t know about these. I’ll check them out.
However,
I have to add that neither of those have been able to lure me away
from using Git in the terminal. Creature of habit I think.
GitX is a supplement to command-line Git, not a replacement for it.
IMHO Git absolutely needs both a GUI tool and a command line. There is
no good way to visualize complex branching structures without a GUI, and
no good way to perform many of Git’s more complex tasks graphically.
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Jan 2011, at 17:52, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
GitX is a supplement to command-line Git, not a replacement for it.
IMHO Git absolutely needs both a GUI tool and a command line. There
is
no good way to visualize complex branching structures without a GUI,
and
no good way to perform many of Git’s more complex tasks graphically.
In that regard I wholeheartedly agree. I will also fire up one of the
Git GUIs out there (or sometimes just fire up “gitk” from the terminal).
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
On 27 January 2011 16:56, Bruno S. [email protected] wrote:
redcar is awesome
use to install
$ gem install redcar
$ redcar install
$ redcar
I’m trying it but when I run redcar I have:
Redcar 0.10 ( java )
Error loading plugin: <Plugin swt 1.0 depends:[dep(core >0)] 0 files>
cannot load Java class org.eclipse.swt.SWT
…
I’m using linux amd64 and jruby 1.5.6.
On 1 February 2011 16:20, Mauro [email protected] wrote:
Error loading plugin: <Plugin swt 1.0 depends:[dep(core >0)] 0 files>
cannot load Java class org.eclipse.swt.SWT
…I’m using linux amd64 and jruby 1.5.6.
I’ve solved
Now redcar is my ide, I’ve deleted netbeans, aptana, kate, gedit, vim,
etc.
I hope that textmate have breakpoint and debugging like netbeans
On the subject of standalone GUI tools, I think both Tower
(http://www.git-tower.com/
) and Gitti (http://www.gittiapp.com/) beat GitX hands down.
just went to check these out… only to be sorely dissapointed that they
are
both mac-only
anything comparable for linux or windoze?
*random note: is proud that i got an old-ish laptop running ubuntu
server &
cygwin playing nicely together… so now i can have my cake, eat it &
share
with only the people i want to share with!
hex
On 2 February 2011 15:47, Mauro [email protected] wrote:
On 2 February 2011 15:43, Ahmy Y. [email protected] wrote:
I hope that textmate have breakpoint and debugging like netbeans
Netbeans rails support is discontinued? Ok, I’ve destroyed netbeans from my
pc.
Eh? Why? It’s not like it’s going to just stop working
On 2 February 2011 16:22, Steve S. [email protected]
wrote:
Eh? Why? It’s not like it’s going to just stop working
Yes but they said that rails support is discontinued and I don’t like
it.
Try redcar.
On 2 February 2011 15:43, Ahmy Y. [email protected] wrote:
I hope that textmate have breakpoint anddebugginglike netbeans
Netbeans rails support is discontinued? Ok, I’ve destroyed netbeans from
my pc.
On 27 January 2011 16:56, Bruno S. [email protected] wrote:
redcar is awesome
use to install
$ gem install redcar
$ redcar install
$ redcar
Do you know how to open redcar with the last session?
Every time I open redcar I must browse directories and reopen all my
last files.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs