Disagree, I think it's no better or worse than having it all spread out. I mean if you go to the southern states they've never even heard of recycling.
It is not that they have not heard about recycling down here, it is that for a lot of places here you have to pay to recycle, which most people will not do.
A friend just texted me "Cool deal!" which I think is an accidental combination of the phrases "good deal" and "cool beans." Now I can only think how the opposite combination of "Good beans!" would have been much cooler.
A friend just texted me "Cool deal!" which I think is an accidental combination of the phrases "good deal" and "cool beans." Now I can only think how the opposite combination of "Good beans!" would have been much cooler.
Would combining those phrases to "Cool beans, good deal" be appropriate while playing Bohnanza?
It costs about the same amount to rent a mini-fridge for my dorm room as it does to buy one from Amazon. I don't even know why I shop anywhere else.
Also, the professor for my Advanced Programming course is awesome. According to him, he's making us learn C and UNIX text editors so that "our kung fu will be stronger" than people who only learned Java and/or only use IDEs.
It's teaching people to get their code to compile without relying on IDEs to fix mistakes and/or tell them what they're doing wrong. It makes for careful programming and fewer bugfixes when compiling.
Another quote from the professor: "With Java, it's hard to do something wrong, but C just crashes. Well, Java will give you a 'Null Pointer Exception,' so you know you have a Null Pointer Exception. With C, half the time you run it and it crashes, and then it works the next time. It's fun!"
Also, IDEs hide all kinds of other little bits of complexity, e.g. build paths, that as a programmer you should understand, even if later on you don't want to actively deal with them.
It's teaching people to get their code to compile without relying on IDEs to fix mistakes and/or tell them what they're doing wrong. It makes for careful programming and fewer bugfixes when compiling.
Another quote from the professor: "With Java, it's hard to do something wrong, but C just crashes. Well, Java will give you a 'Null Pointer Exception,' so you know you have a Null Pointer Exception. With C, half the time you run it and it crashes, and then it works the next time. It's fun!"
Not really, I mean I've gone through the same exact thing in school but using a Unix text editor doesn't prevent this from happening. Compiling in Linux will tell you the same thing as an IDE. Only you making an honest effort to program more carefully will do that. Him forcing you to use Unix editors is trying to instill this mentality.
The only real difference is that an IDE compiles all these tools together for ease of use and provides you with a debugger usually. He's trying to get you to program without using a debugger to step through code I would assume.
Also seg fault :P
Also, IDEs hide all kinds of other little bits of complexity, e.g. build paths, that as a programmer you should understand, even if later on you don't want to actively deal with them.
True, although they're not really complex but it is something you would need to know as a programmer.
Well, UNIX text editor was my interpretation of what he was saying. We're also expected to do a lot of work in the UNIX shell, though - eventually we're allegedly going to produce a functioning UNIX web server "from scratch."
Well, UNIX text editor was my interpretation of what he was saying. We're also expected to do a lot of work in the UNIX shell, though - eventually we're allegedly going to produce a functioning UNIX web server "from scratch."
That stuff is really fun. We did that in my Networking class and it was quite the experience.
That makes absolutely no sense. The reason for using Unix text editors I mean.
I agree... Basic knowledge of vi is very useful, and almost necessary, to be technically savvy. Emacs is purely optional as it's not really a "standard" Unix text editor -- all Unix systems are required to have a version of vi installed as per the POSIX standard. Emacs isn't in the POSIX standard -- it just happens to be commonly installed on most (but not all!) Unix systems. I'd argue basic build script/Makefile creation also could be a useful skill as it does teach you a bit about how the compiler works as opposed to hiding it like a lot of IDEs do. Learning these skills is akin to learning how to do arithmetic by hand before being allowed to use a calculator to do your number crunching. The calculator is convenient and is generally a good idea to use for large/complex tasks whenever available, but you should still be able to do all your arithmetic by hand in a pinch. It may not be as quick as with a calculator, but it's pretty much guaranteed to always be there -- even if you have to resort to using a stick to scratch your calculations in dirt.
However, when you get to larger scale projects, an IDE's benefits really start to add up. It's nice not to have to manually specify all the dependencies in a Makefile (although newer build systems, like Scons, Cmake, etc., do help alleviate this issue). It's nice to be able to just hit F2 (or whatever the appropriate keyboard shortcut is) to jump to where your function is defined. It's nice to have your code browsing history in a stack in your editor so you can jump right back when you're done modifying a function. Yes, you can accomplish this in vi or Emacs by essentially duct-taping various other command line tools and occasionally installing the appropriate script/plugin/etc., but in my "old age," I find that I prefer using an IDE (QtCreator right now as I do my work in C++ on Linux, but the right IDE is a matter of platform, language, and personal taste) for anything non-trivial.
Edit: You don't need an IDE to use a debugger. Gdb is a fully functional command line debugger (one that I use almost daily) and many IDEs, at least on Unix systems, merely provide a GUI wrapper around it. You can always still just drop down to the shell and run it directly though.
Bah, ctags pales in comparison to what QtCreator does. You need at least something like cscope to truly get that level of functionality. Plus, as I said, it does require duct-taping a lot of different tools together and installing additional plugins into vim. At that point, you're making vim an IDE in all but name anyway, only you have to go through the manual labor of adding all the crap you need to make it function like one. Oh, and vim is not vi. It's vi clone and pretty much the standard vi implementation on Linux, but it's not standard across all Unixes. If you're using BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc., you'll just get something based on the original Berkeley vi which has far less functionality than vim does.
Now, I got nothing against people who prefer to use vim as your editor. I use it quite a bit myself, along with Emacs, valgrind, command-line GDB, and so on. Even though I do most of my editing in QtCreator, I do a lot of stuff from the command line as well. I've even written Makefiles by hand on occasion. However, this snootiness against people who prefer to use IDEs is ridiculous. They are all tools and all tools have their appropriate places. Use what's most efficient to get your job done, provided you also have the skills to use more common tools when the fancier ones aren't available.
I'm faster and more productive with the above than using eclipse (which is the standard in my lab). IDE's can be slow and obtrusive, where finding certain settings requires navigating multiple layers of esoteric GUI windows.
The problem in your case isn't IDEs in general. It's Eclipse, which is a steaming pile of crap. I can't believe people actually use that piece of junk and actually think it's good. NetBeans and IntelliJ IDEA are far superior Java IDEs, and if you're using Eclipse for any other languages, you've got to be some sort of masochist.
That said, I use QtCreator as a glorified text editor with built-in code browsing. I still prefer command-line GDB (though I often run it inside emacs to get a nice multi-paned view of my code and the debugger command line) and use command-line build tools (which are actually ridiculously simple to specify in QtCreator -- so I just need to hit Ctrl-B to build and get output with clickable-links to any compile errors that crop up). Otherwise, I still use the CLI for nearly everything else.
On Windows, MS Visual Studio is actually quite nice, for as little as I've used it. Similarly, X-Code (which I've used more than MSVS) on Mac is also very nice.
Comments
Wooonativan!m
Yet they never cease to be funny.
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/
Of course. I don't actually know why I didn't expect exactly that.
Also, the professor for my Advanced Programming course is awesome. According to him, he's making us learn C and UNIX text editors so that "our kung fu will be stronger" than people who only learned Java and/or only use IDEs.
Another quote from the professor: "With Java, it's hard to do something wrong, but C just crashes. Well, Java will give you a 'Null Pointer Exception,' so you know you have a Null Pointer Exception. With C, half the time you run it and it crashes, and then it works the next time. It's fun!"
The only real difference is that an IDE compiles all these tools together for ease of use and provides you with a debugger usually. He's trying to get you to program without using a debugger to step through code I would assume.
Also seg fault :P True, although they're not really complex but it is something you would need to know as a programmer.
However, when you get to larger scale projects, an IDE's benefits really start to add up. It's nice not to have to manually specify all the dependencies in a Makefile (although newer build systems, like Scons, Cmake, etc., do help alleviate this issue). It's nice to be able to just hit F2 (or whatever the appropriate keyboard shortcut is) to jump to where your function is defined. It's nice to have your code browsing history in a stack in your editor so you can jump right back when you're done modifying a function. Yes, you can accomplish this in vi or Emacs by essentially duct-taping various other command line tools and occasionally installing the appropriate script/plugin/etc., but in my "old age," I find that I prefer using an IDE (QtCreator right now as I do my work in C++ on Linux, but the right IDE is a matter of platform, language, and personal taste) for anything non-trivial.
Edit: You don't need an IDE to use a debugger. Gdb is a fully functional command line debugger (one that I use almost daily) and many IDEs, at least on Unix systems, merely provide a GUI wrapper around it. You can always still just drop down to the shell and run it directly though.
If you want fancy stuff, like method introspection and autocomplete add ctags plugins to vim.
Unix as IDE
EDIT: Also, terminator is by far the greatest terminal ever. I HIGHLY recommend it.
Now, I got nothing against people who prefer to use vim as your editor. I use it quite a bit myself, along with Emacs, valgrind, command-line GDB, and so on. Even though I do most of my editing in QtCreator, I do a lot of stuff from the command line as well. I've even written Makefiles by hand on occasion. However, this snootiness against people who prefer to use IDEs is ridiculous. They are all tools and all tools have their appropriate places. Use what's most efficient to get your job done, provided you also have the skills to use more common tools when the fancier ones aren't available.
That said, I use QtCreator as a glorified text editor with built-in code browsing. I still prefer command-line GDB (though I often run it inside emacs to get a nice multi-paned view of my code and the debugger command line) and use command-line build tools (which are actually ridiculously simple to specify in QtCreator -- so I just need to hit Ctrl-B to build and get output with clickable-links to any compile errors that crop up). Otherwise, I still use the CLI for nearly everything else.
On Windows, MS Visual Studio is actually quite nice, for as little as I've used it. Similarly, X-Code (which I've used more than MSVS) on Mac is also very nice.