From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Thu Jan 7 15:00:51 2010 Message-ID: <4B463CF2.10908@atari-source.org> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:58:42 -0500 From: Mark Duckworth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] QED References: <201001072153.54168.oak@helsinkinet.fi> In-Reply-To: <201001072153.54168.oak@helsinkinet.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On 1/7/10 2:53 PM, Eero Tamminen wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 07 January 2010, p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk wrote: > >>> a) Fork qed. >>> b) Don't fork, but make it possible to compile a plain text-editor as >>> well as the complete IDE. >>> c) Don't integrate everything into one binary, but create several tools >>> and tie them together with a clever protocol. >>> >>> Personally I'd prefer (c). >>> > I like (c) too, but what about extending AHCC instead of QED? > > > I was under the impression AHCC was just a command line compiler. I'll check it out. >>> It's easier to create several small tools >>> than one huge program. And it's easier to debug and easier to maintain. >>> You will get the project to a usable state quicker, and it would be >>> easier to extend it with new tools later on. >>> >> I am not a Java fan either (nor C for that matter) but IDEA is a good >> IDE. >> >> Whether you decide to branch QED or just develop it, the older versions >> of QED will remain and there are other editors. >> >> A set of tools would have to be well integrated to work well. >> >> Are there any open source IDE projects we could borrow from ? >> >> IDEA has loads of features, many of which I never use but here are some >> of the basic features I like and rely on, in no particular order. >> >> Editor >> * can jump from a variable/function use to it's definition >> * can search code for usages of a function/object >> * can see changed modules and which lines and rollback individual changes >> >> CVS >> * can compare local code with CVS rep >> * can merge bits of code from CVS into local version >> * easy to CVS update/commit/checkout/rollback >> >> Debug >> * easily set breakpoints in code >> * can ignore breakpoints without having to remove them >> * jump from errors to code >> * can see all variable in scope and values >> > Using which debugger? > > I was thinking of using GDB as the backend. GDB supports client/server debugging so I don't think it'll be an uphill battle to implement. The IDE would primarily be centered around gcc building/makefile builds. I was looking over QED's code all morning. It's super clean. very easy to understand even though it's sparsely commented. Thanks, Mark