Dears, What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ? Avail for Linux ? Gretz -- Mathieu
Mathieu, On 8.3.2005, at 19:10, mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org wrote:> Dears, > > What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and > providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ?TextMate (http://macromates.com/)> > Avail for Linux ?Sorry, only for OS X. //jarkko -- Jarkko Laine http://jlaine.net http://odesign.fi _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:10:14 +0100, mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org <mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org> wrote:> What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and > providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ? > > Avail for Linux ?I feel your pain. I too am a linux user looking for an editor similar to textmate. If I find anything I''ll let you know. -- One Guy With A Camera http://rbpark.ath.cx
tried eclipse 3.0 + RDT ? ( http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net/ ) It is still quite incomplete but its evolving slowly into something promising indeed jean On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 03:28:14 -0700, Rob Park <rbpark-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:10:14 +0100, mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org > <mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and > > providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ? > > > > Avail for Linux ? > > I feel your pain. I too am a linux user looking for an editor similar > to textmate. If I find anything I''ll let you know. > > -- > One Guy With A Camera > http://rbpark.ath.cx > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:49:09 +0100, Jean Helou <jean.helou-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> tried eclipse 3.0 + RDT ? ( http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net/ ) > It is still quite incomplete but its evolving slowly into something > promising indeedI use Eclipse 3.0 in Windows. It really blew me away, but there are a few gotchas. For instance, if you double click on a word, it highlights the whole word, punctuation and all. Most other text editors stop at punctuation (except Notepad). Also, I''d love code folding for ruby. Apparently the java ide portion recently got code folding, but it hasn''t been added to RDT. I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
According to Rick Olson:> explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows?Probably never, it is very much tied to OS X''s framework (Cocoa). -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto-0kjVc+YyuDZX+h8frlqCcVAUjnlXr6A1@public.gmane.org Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.8.0: Wed Dec 22 14:26:17 PST 2004
>> explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as >> well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? > > Probably never, it is very much tied to OS X''s framework (Cocoa).Not only that. The TextMate author considers Windows to be an awful operating system. And he doesn''t like working with awful things ;) -- David Heinemeier Hansson, http://www.basecamphq.com/ -- Web-based Project Management http://www.rubyonrails.org/ -- Web-application framework for Ruby http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
> <mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and > > providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ? > > > > Avail for Linux ? > > I feel your pain. I too am a linux user looking for an editor similar > to textmate. If I find anything I''ll let you know.You might check out jEdit (www.jedit.org). I''ve used it for years for writing in several different languages. My only complaint for using it for Ruby is that some of the auto-indenting (specifically auto-un-indent when it encounters an "end" or an "else" ) doesn''t work, but other than that it has all the standard features of a good editor. Syntax highlighting, folding, global search/replace, macros, etc (http://www.jedit.org/index.php?page=features).
> >> explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > >> well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? > > > > Probably never, it is very much tied to OS X''s framework (Cocoa). > > Not only that. The TextMate author considers Windows to be an awful > operating system. And he doesn''t like working with awful things ;)I was being facetious :) -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
Belorion wrote:> > > <mathieu.chappuis-9WUwFzjiGHM@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > What is this software runned as "e" showed on most Rails Videos and > > > providing a tree browser (explorer) and editor ? > > > > > > Avail for Linux ? > > > > I feel your pain. I too am a linux user looking for an editor similar > > to textmate. If I find anything I''ll let you know. > > You might check out jEdit (www.jedit.org). I''ve used it for years for > writing in several different languages. My only complaint for using > it for Ruby is that some of the auto-indenting (specifically > auto-un-indent when it encounters an "end" or an "else" ) doesn''t > work, but other than that it has all the standard features of a good > editor. Syntax highlighting, folding, global search/replace, macros, > etc (http://www.jedit.org/index.php?page=features).You could also try FreeRIDE (written in Ruby). It has a tree browser for both the file system *and* the structure of the current ruby file being edited (module/class/method). If you get the version in CVS, it also has builtin ri ruby documentation (courtesy of FXRi). You can see a screen shot here: http://freeride.rubyforge.org/fxri.png and you can download it here: http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=31 Curt
> You could also try FreeRIDE (written in Ruby). It has a tree browser for > both the file system *and* the structure of the current ruby file being > edited (module/class/method). If you get the version in CVS, it also has > builtin ri ruby documentation (courtesy of FXRi). > > You can see a screen shot here: > > http://freeride.rubyforge.org/fxri.png > > and you can download it here: > > http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=31 > > CurtThanks, I''ll try it out.
David Heinemeier Hansson schrieb:>>> explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as >>> well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? >> >> >> Probably never, it is very much tied to OS X''s framework (Cocoa). > > > Not only that. The TextMate author considers Windows to be an awful > operating system. And he doesn''t like working with awful things ;)While this might be, the author also seems to be financially very short sighted. But if you have a Mac, than money is no issue to you, right? ;) Sascha
Rick Olson schrieb:> I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d > like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to > explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows?In Gvim this is let g:explVertical=1 (put this in vimrc) :Sexplore There you have it, file browser and syntax highlighting that is simply unmatched. Sascha
much much simpler solution : Get a mac> Rick Olson schrieb: > > I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d > > like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to > > explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > > well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? > > In Gvim this is > let g:explVertical=1 (put this in vimrc) > > :Sexplore > > There you have it, file browser and syntax highlighting that is simply > unmatched. > > Sascha > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 13:37, Rick Olson wrote:> I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d > like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to > explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows?Kate might suit you for this. It''s a very good text editor, with syntax highlighting and folding support, but also a SIMPLE project management mode that''ll keep a list of working files and show them to you in a tree on the left (or wherever you dock it). For console, you might check out FTE. It doesn''t work so well on powerpc (or maybe on any framebuffer) but it''s a nice, fast, syntax highlighting editor. While it doesn''t list files on screen while editing, it''ll show a directory when you close a file, navigate with arrows, and open for editing with return, so you can zip around your project really quickly. Alternatively, I suggest finding a fast file manager and working around that. That said, I''m still looking for something (non-scite) with code completion, and perhaps debugging support. I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files etc., which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand what commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? -- Lee.
> While this might be, the author also seems to be financially very > short sighted. But if you have a Mac, than money is no issue to you, > right? ;)Yeah. Some people are so focused on "enjoying their working life" and fancy, pansy fluffy ideals like that. Weird. When will they learn to bow to the mighty dollar? :) -- David Heinemeier Hansson, http://www.basecamphq.com/ -- Web-based Project Management http://www.rubyonrails.org/ -- Web-application framework for Ruby http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
* Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]:> > I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files etc., > which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand what > commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet?Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the component one but not sure - probably all of them. Course if you''re not using TextMate this doesn''t help at all... Oh- just looked at the subject - you want a linux editor. Oh well. Maybe something else has a similar feature on linux... -- ______________________________ toddgrimason*todd-AT-slack.net
Todd Grimason wrote:>* Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]: > > >>I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files etc., >>which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand what >>commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? >> >> > >Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros >for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the >component one but not sure - probably all of them. > >Course if you''re not using TextMate this doesn''t help at all... > >Oh- just looked at the subject - you want a linux editor. Oh >well. Maybe something else has a similar feature on linux... > > >I know it''s been mentioned before on the list but jedit (www.jedit.org) is an excellent editor written in java so it is cross platform. There are tons of available plugins for it and it even has ruby support. I use the CodeBrowser plugin for a class browser view to ruby files. Jedit also supports folding, project management, and macros similar to TextMate along with much more through the plugins. My only wish that there was a plugin for the ruby debugger... :) Give it a try! Arnold
> I know it''s been mentioned before on the list but jedit (www.jedit.org) > is an excellent editor written in java so it is cross platform. There > are tons of available plugins for it and it even has ruby support. I use > the CodeBrowser plugin for a class browser view to ruby files. Jedit > also supports folding, project management, and macros similar to > TextMate along with much more through the plugins. My only wish that > there was a plugin for the ruby debugger... :)I use jedit on the pc. Do you know if there''s any plugin that does completion and smart typing like textmate? Also, do you know if you can change its keyboard behavior on the mac to be more mac-ish? (although I only launch it on the mac when I need the jdiff view)
Caio Chassot wrote:>> I know it''s been mentioned before on the list but jedit >> (www.jedit.org) is an excellent editor written in java so it is cross >> platform. There are tons of available plugins for it and it even has >> ruby support. I use the CodeBrowser plugin for a class browser view >> to ruby files. Jedit also supports folding, project management, and >> macros similar to TextMate along with much more through the plugins. >> My only wish that there was a plugin for the ruby debugger... :) > > > I use jedit on the pc. > > Do you know if there''s any plugin that does completion and smart > typing like textmate?It does not have "intellisense" or whatever its called. However, you could emulate similar behavior seen in the Ruby videos if you create macros. Also, if you install the SuperScript plugin you can even write the macros in Ruby if you want. :)> > Also, do you know if you can change its keyboard behavior on the mac > to be more mac-ish? (although I only launch it on the mac when I need > the jdiff view)I am not sure about what you mean by keyboard behavior? I know you can reassign the hotkeys, etc if you want to change it''s behavior... maybe that would help? Arnold> _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:29:31 -0500, Todd Grimason <todd-cwT7Wi5Y1r1eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]: > > > > I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files etc., > > which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand what > > commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? > > Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros > for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the > component one but not sure - probably all of them. > > Course if you''re not using TextMate this doesn''t help at all... > > Oh- just looked at the subject - you want a linux editor. Oh > well. Maybe something else has a similar feature on linux... >vim has macros galore...
Vim on mac here :-). Pepe On 9.3.2005, at 22:47, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:29:31 -0500, Todd Grimason <todd-cwT7Wi5Y1r1eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: >> * Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]: >>> >>> I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files >>> etc., >>> which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand >>> what >>> commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? >> >> Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros >> for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the >> component one but not sure - probably all of them. >> >> Course if you''re not using TextMate this doesn''t help at all... >> >> Oh- just looked at the subject - you want a linux editor. Oh >> well. Maybe something else has a similar feature on linux... >> > > vim has macros galore... > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 19:29, Todd Grimason wrote:> * Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]: > > I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files > > etc., which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand > > what commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? > > Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros > for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the > component one but not sure - probably all of them.Thanks, but no, I''m not referring to macros. What I mean is that a rails controller file isn''t valid ruby on its own, so I''d like an editor to understand how to interpret it as if it was by including the parsing related files first, or whatever. -- Lee.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:07:57 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 19:29, Todd Grimason wrote: > > * Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> [2005-03-09 11:49]: > > > I''m also curious about a way to code-complete rails controller files > > > etc., which don''t include the necessary files for an editor to understand > > > what commands are available. Has anyone hacked around that yet? > > > > Not sure if this is what you mean, but David HH uses TextMate macros > > for common Rails idioms in one of the videos he made - I think the > > component one but not sure - probably all of them. > > Thanks, but no, I''m not referring to macros. What I mean is that a rails > controller file isn''t valid ruby on its own, so I''d like an editor to > understand how to interpret it as if it was by including the parsing related > files first, or whatever. >How is a rails controller not ''valid ruby on its own"?
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 22:12, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:07:57 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Thanks, but no, I''m not referring to macros. What I mean is that a rails > > controller file isn''t valid ruby on its own, so I''d like an editor to > > understand how to interpret it as if it was by including the parsing > > related files first, or whatever. > > How is a rails controller not ''valid ruby on its own"?Well, maybe I''ve misunderstood. But it seems to me that, if I ran a controller file directly through ruby, I''d get errors because none of the rails stuff is being included by that controller file. Right? So, if an editor were to try to parse the controller file you''re working on, to figure out the possible completions etc., it would fail. No? -- Lee.
As far as i know there is no editor with "intelli sense" for ruby at all. Its not really technically possible because most methods aren''t even there until some other method ran. Think ActiveRecord has to poll the db to see what fields are there before creating its accessors. However, i found that i didn''t miss this feature after a week or two into ruby. I think not having it around actually leads to me knowing my own code a lot better and choosing better and more consistent method names. And yes, the year before coming to ruby and textmate I used Intellij''s IDEA.> Well, maybe I''ve misunderstood. But it seems to me that, if I ran a > controller file directly through ruby, I''d get errors because none of the > rails stuff is being included by that controller file. Right? So, if an > editor were to try to parse the controller file you''re working on, to figure > out the possible completions etc., it would fail. No? > > -- > Lee.-- Tobi http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck http://www.hieraki.org - Open source book authoring http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 22:56, Tobias Luetke wrote:> As far as i know there is no editor with "intelli sense" for ruby at all. > Its not really technically possible because most methods aren''t even > there until some other method ran.Hmm, I thought I''d heard of one or two. I don''t believe in impossible, so I''ll keep looking ;)> Think ActiveRecord has to poll the db to see what fields are there > before creating its accessors.You do have a good point here, however :)> However, i found that i didn''t miss this feature after a week or two > into ruby. I think not having it around actually leads to me knowing > my own code a lot better and choosing better and more consistent > method names. > > And yes, the year before coming to ruby and textmate I used Intellij''s > IDEA.Actually, I''m more used to working without it than with it, but I guess I''m getting used to labour saving devices as times goes on :) -- Lee.
> Actually, I''m more used to working without it than with it, but I guess I''m > getting used to labour saving devices as times goes on :)It''s not exactly a vital feature, but intellisense would be very well received. I imagine an IDE would have to instantiate the whole rails app in the background and have it automatically refresh as you update your code. I could see this as a plugin for one of the many pluggable editors. Maybe someone could take one of the ruby-based ones and write a mod for it... -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
* Rick Olson (technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050309 18:42]:> It''s not exactly a vital feature, but intellisense would be very well > received. I imagine an IDE would have to instantiate the whole rails > app in the background and have it automatically refresh as you update > your code. I could see this as a plugin for one of the many pluggable > editors. Maybe someone could take one of the ruby-based ones and write > a mod for it...Shades of the refactoring browser, I''d say (which is not a derogatory statement)... Rick -- http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 977 | interpreted and random email haiku | applied as Congressional | intent intended.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:42:52 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 13:37, Rick Olson wrote: > > I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d > > like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to > > explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as > > well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? > > Kate might suit you for this. It''s a very good text editor, with syntax > highlighting and folding support, but also a SIMPLE project management mode > that''ll keep a list of working files and show them to you in a tree on the > left (or wherever you dock it).And if you''re a GNOME person instead of KDE, I can half-heartedly recommend bluefish. It has syntax highlighting for ruby, and it has a side-panel for displaying the file heirarchy of your project, though it seems a little buggy (it''s passable, though). It doesn''t have any magical auto-completion features unfortunately, and it is primarily designed as an HTML editor, so it''s not perfect, but it''s the most "textmate-alike" editor I''ve managed to find for linux in a couple days of searching. It has extensive support for macros (eg, you can make simple macros that simple insert some text before and after the cursor, or you can make complicated macros that popup dialogue boxes that ask for various values and parameters to the macro). Unfortunately it doesn''t come with any ruby/rails macros, the macros are only for various other languages (C, PHP, HTML, SQL to name a few), but you can make your own ruby macros if you really want them (frankly I found the interface for making macros a little crude). -- One Guy With A Camera http://rbpark.ath.cx
Lee Braiden wrote:>On Wednesday 09 March 2005 22:56, Tobias Luetke wrote: > > >>As far as i know there is no editor with "intelli sense" for ruby at all. >>Its not really technically possible because most methods aren''t even >>there until some other method ran. >> >> > >Hmm, I thought I''d heard of one or two. I don''t believe in impossible, so >I''ll keep looking ;) > >How can you have editors like this where a given function can redefine *itself*? Types are strict, but determined at runtime, etc.. Ruby is a 100% dynamic language. The editor would have to be more advanced than Ruby itself (ie. include a modified Ruby interpreter) The only thing an editor can do is provide a static list of default class definitions. For example core and starndard Ruby libraries or whatever. This can be done by parsing documentation. - Adam
On Thursday 10 March 2005 06:49, Adam Majer wrote:> How can you have editors like this where a given function can redefine > *itself*? Types are strict, but determined at runtime, etc.. Ruby is a > 100% dynamic language. The editor would have to be more advanced than > Ruby itself (ie. include a modified Ruby interpreter) > > The only thing an editor can do is provide a static list of default > class definitions. For example core and starndard Ruby libraries or > whatever. This can be done by parsing documentation.Well, Rick has already suggested one possible way, and I''m sure there are others. I have seen code completion parse include files and complete methods from them, so it''s not simply a matter of parsing pre-defined docs. The very fact that ruby, as a dynamic language, is available should tell you that there are no hard limits in software; emulators that pretend to be whole computers, genetic algorithms that come up with answers humans don''t fully understand themselves... Anything is possible. Languages are not call Turing Complete for nothing. Use your imagination ;) -- Lee.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:52:20 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Thursday 10 March 2005 06:49, Adam Majer wrote: > > How can you have editors like this where a given function can redefine > > *itself*? Types are strict, but determined at runtime, etc.. Ruby is a > > 100% dynamic language. The editor would have to be more advanced than > > Ruby itself (ie. include a modified Ruby interpreter) > > > > The only thing an editor can do is provide a static list of default > > class definitions. For example core and starndard Ruby libraries or > > whatever. This can be done by parsing documentation. > > Well, Rick has already suggested one possible way, and I''m sure there are > others. I have seen code completion parse include files and complete methods > from them, so it''s not simply a matter of parsing pre-defined docs.It''s not just a matter of parsing included files with a dynamic language. The editor would _have_ to be running a ruby interpreter and be constantly refreshing the application to see what methods a given object would support at that point in time. If at any point the program you were working on became unstable (say, you were writing a class and didn''t yet have the ''end'' tag type in yet) the application wouldn''t run anymore and the autocomplete features wouldn''t work.
Adam Majer wrote:> How can you have editors like this where a given function can > redefine *itself*? Types are strict, but determined at > runtime, etc.. Ruby is a 100% dynamic language. The editor > would have to be more advanced than Ruby itself (ie. include > a modified Ruby interpreter) > > The only thing an editor can do is provide a static list of > default class definitions. For example core and starndard > Ruby libraries or whatever. This can be done by parsing documentation.What about setting a breakpoint in a debugger. If you start typing after execution has reached the breakpoint, it ought to be technically possible for an intellisense mechanism to use the debugger''s knowledge of what identifiers are valid at that point... Adelle.
On Thursday 10 March 2005 10:53, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> The editor would _have_ to be running a ruby interpreter and be > constantly refreshing the application to see what methods a given > object would support at that point in time.Of course it would. How else would an editor know what a file means if it doesn''t interpret it? But it''s been done before, and it will be done again, I''m quite sure. Either way, we''ll just have to wait and see. -- Lee.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:13:28 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Thursday 10 March 2005 10:53, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > The editor would _have_ to be running a ruby interpreter and be > > constantly refreshing the application to see what methods a given > > object would support at that point in time. > > Of course it would. How else would an editor know what a file means if it > doesn''t interpret it? But it''s been done before, and it will be done again, > I''m quite sure. Either way, we''ll just have to wait and see. >Parsing is different than interpreting.
Sebastian Kanthak
2005-Mar-10 21:55 UTC
Re: Linux editors, rails, completion and debugging
Hi, Lee Braiden wrote:>On Thursday 10 March 2005 10:53, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > >>The editor would _have_ to be running a ruby interpreter and be >>constantly refreshing the application to see what methods a given >>object would support at that point in time. >> >> > >Of course it would. How else would an editor know what a file means if it >doesn''t interpret it? But it''s been done before, and it will be done again, >I''m quite sure. Either way, we''ll just have to wait and see. > > >the best it can do is use a heuristic, it can never work as perfectly as in static languages like Java. The reason is the folowing: What, if the ruby program is not terminating, e.g. is in an infinite loop? The IDE would have be so smart as to stop it at some point, but who knows if it wouldn''t terminate (and define a new method at the same time) in the next second? Theoretical computer science tells us that this problem (known as the halting problem) is undecideable. Sebastian
On Thursday 10 March 2005 21:55, Sebastian Kanthak wrote:> The IDE would have be so smart as to stop it at some point, but who knows > if it wouldn''t terminate (and define a new method at the same time) in the > next second?Well, every editor I''ve seen that has code completion limits it in a number of ways by not starting the completion for a time, only giving a certain number of matches, only parsing in the background rather than hogging your CPU to get as much worked out as possible, etc. Such is life, but it''s still possible, by any reasonable definition of possible. -- Lee.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:53:08 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Thursday 10 March 2005 21:55, Sebastian Kanthak wrote: > > The IDE would have be so smart as to stop it at some point, but who knows > > if it wouldn''t terminate (and define a new method at the same time) in the > > next second? > > Well, every editor I''ve seen that has code completion limits it in a number of > ways by not starting the completion for a time, only giving a certain number > of matches, only parsing in the background rather than hogging your CPU to > get as much worked out as possible, etc. Such is life, but it''s still > possible, by any reasonable definition of possible. > > -- > Lee.You can''t simply parse Ruby code to figure out what functions, classes, variables etc are available, as you can with static languages such as Java or C++. Ruby code does change on runtime (i.e. dynamic). You have to actually run (interpret) the entire application to figure out what''s available. I mean, I have classes that, at runtime, look at some text file and dynamically create functions. You have to run the application (not just parse!) to figure out that the class will contain those functions.
* Joe Van Dyk (joevandyk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050310 20:18]:> You can''t simply parse Ruby code to figure out what functions, > classes, variables etc are available, as you can with static languages > such as Java or C++. Ruby code does change on runtime (i.e. dynamic). > You have to actually run (interpret) the entire application to figure > out what''s available. > > I mean, I have classes that, at runtime, look at some text file and > dynamically create functions. You have to run the application (not > just parse!) to figure out that the class will contain those > functions.You essentially need the same interpretive power required for a refactoring browser to make a truly smart editor. In fact, once you''ve got the guts built to make a smart editor you might as well go ahead and implement a refactoring browser, which is vastly more useful anyway. There has been work done on a Ruby refactoring browser [0][1] as well as providing refactoring support in FreeRIDE and Emacs. I can''t say that I''m up to date on how up to date those efforts are. [0] http://www.kmc.gr.jp/proj/rrb/index-en.html [1] http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/rrb/ Rick -- http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 885 | have to wait until random email haiku | I have some sort of a ride. | Sean... WWJD? JWRTFM.
Christopher Bailey
2005-Mar-11 05:51 UTC
Re: Linux editors, rails, completion and debugging
Getting into this thread late, so appologies if this has been mentioned... There''s the RDT which is the Ruby environment for Eclipse. I''ve used this a fair bit and it''s decent, although doesn''t provide near the functionality say that its Java counterpart does. It has a few nice Ruby things, like built in ability to run unit tests and display the results in a bit more fancy manner (dedicated "view" to show results and allow you to hop around any failures). RDT can be found here: http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net/, and some features they mention are, "syntax highlighting, on the fly syntax check, graphical outline, Test::Unit view/runner, Ruby application launching, content assist, source formatter, and a Ruby debugger." On Linux, I was also using Kdevelop which has Ruby support, and this was decent. DHH mentioned it here: http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000370.html Finally, I too have found I''m liking TextMate on OSX :) I have grown to have my Mac as my favorite dev box now (especially after getting a dual G5 machine), and wound up basically ditching my Linux box altogether (shock and awe!). But, on Linux, I''d either be using Kdevelop or RDT/Eclipse. None have the Intellisense type stuff that Eclipse and IDEA (and others no doubt) have for Java, or Visual Studio .Net has for C/C++/C#, etc. On 3/9/05 10:03 PM, "Rob Park" <rbpark-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:42:52 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 13:37, Rick Olson wrote: >>> I don''t even need a full blown ide, as SciTE works great. But, I''d >>> like some kind of filesystem shown on the left so I''m not jumping to >>> explorer to find my files. It looks like TextMate has this feature as >>> well. When is a TextMate port coming to Windows? >> >> Kate might suit you for this. It''s a very good text editor, with syntax >> highlighting and folding support, but also a SIMPLE project management mode >> that''ll keep a list of working files and show them to you in a tree on the >> left (or wherever you dock it). > > And if you''re a GNOME person instead of KDE, I can half-heartedly > recommend bluefish. It has syntax highlighting for ruby, and it has a > side-panel for displaying the file heirarchy of your project, though > it seems a little buggy (it''s passable, though). > > It doesn''t have any magical auto-completion features unfortunately, > and it is primarily designed as an HTML editor, so it''s not perfect, > but it''s the most "textmate-alike" editor I''ve managed to find for > linux in a couple days of searching. > > It has extensive support for macros (eg, you can make simple macros > that simple insert some text before and after the cursor, or you can > make complicated macros that popup dialogue boxes that ask for various > values and parameters to the macro). Unfortunately it doesn''t come > with any ruby/rails macros, the macros are only for various other > languages (C, PHP, HTML, SQL to name a few), but you can make your own > ruby macros if you really want them (frankly I found the interface for > making macros a little crude).
On Friday 11 March 2005 01:14, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> Ruby code does change on runtime (i.e. dynamic). > You have to actually run (interpret) the entire application to figure > out what''s available.Yes, I''m aware of that :) -- Lee.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:41:27 +0000, Lee Braiden <jel-OMY0mCUCxqbPG/DoapTOmA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Friday 11 March 2005 01:14, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > Ruby code does change on runtime (i.e. dynamic). > > You have to actually run (interpret) the entire application to figure > > out what''s available. > > Yes, I''m aware of that :) > > -- > Lee.Ok, great. So a lot of my applications don''t ever end. How would the IDE run those?
> You can''t simply parse Ruby code to figure out what functions, > classes, variables etc are available, as you can with static languages > such as Java or C++. Ruby code does change on runtime (i.e. dynamic). > You have to actually run (interpret) the entire application to figure > out what''s available. >It''s been done though. While it may not be 100% accurate, it doesn''t have to be. Any decent Smalltalk environment offers code completion. XCode offers content assist for Objective-C and that''s a dynamic language as well. While it may not give you every possibility, for example it won''t ever work with the find_by_* methods in ActiveRecord, assistance with just the base classes would be really nice. Anoop