[Israel.pm] Completion and editors (offtopic)
shlomif at iglu.org.il
Wed Jun 9 02:19:15 PDT 2004
Mikhael and Yuval,
If I understand you correctly, I think both of you try to convince each other
and the world at large in your opinions. These opinions are extreme and you
absolutely refuse to agree with the other side. What is deceptive here is
that there is a grain of fact to your arguments.
What Mikhael is claiming is that features such as auto-completion or syntax
highlighting are Evil, because they do not necessarily work correctly, and
give way to incorrect practices. (like adapting your code for that instead of
the other way around). As opposed to him, Yuval claims (or at least used to)
that these features are an _absolute must_ in an editor and that every
programmer _should use them_. (you can both correct me if I am wrong).
My opinion on this is more rational than either. Editors can have any features
that programmers can find useful (and even those they don't), or they can
lack these features. Similarly, programmers can choose to use any subset of
the features present in their editor of choice. This is as long as they
produce well-written, well-formatted, well-structured, etc. code that
complies with the relevant coding conventions.
You can use ed for this, or you can use Emacs for this, or you can use
something in between. I don't try to tell programmers with which tools and
their features to write their code. I just want to tell them how to write a
high-quality code. (And naturally, do my best to practice what I preach.)
For example, when my sister had to work on my Linux box for her university's
UNIX assignments, I recommended her how to use kate (the so-called "KDE
Advanced Text Editor") because I figured out it would be most similar to what
she was used to. She got the hang of it pretty quickly. Maybe in time she'll
switch to something more powerful.
Editors' users of the world unite!
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 10:26, Yuval Yaari wrote:
> Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
[ SNIPPED ... ]
Shlomi Fish shlomif at iglu.org.il
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
[Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.]
More information about the Perl