Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Wxdevide-devs] Maybe stupid suggestion, but someone has to make it
|
From: Nuklear Z. <nuk...@gm...> - 2009-10-26 07:46:38
|
i can't say i like the idea, i have used C::B enough to know that it works quite a bit differently and that only makes it all the more tempting to create devblocks not Dev-C++ in C++. i am working away from windows as a primary os because of what has happened in xp sp2 and vista. i need an ide i like to be fully comfortable, but c::b works for now. i also need a text editor, but i am already building it. i would use fedora a lot more, but every time i call up gnome edit i get pissed and remember just how much i need a better editor. its like MS super notebook, not like what i need. wine is good to a point, but i have run into issues with it in the past too. so, if looking at codeblocks plugin system will help speed things up, ok, but lets write out own code. i don't like the idea that they own part of our work. libraries are a different story, but... if we make a complete gui that is basically a working text editor while we work on the plugin system/manager then the program will be usefull even before its functional. it will give us time to create the plugin system to allow for the compiler and debugger and stuff too. we can speed that part when it comes by wrapping c::b plugins to work with wxDevIDE. then we can write out own makefile based compiler plugins and the ide will be useful sooner than it would have been.that is another idea. i figued out some of the completion problems i was having, i think i can make a workable api, but it is not finished like scintilla meant it to be i don't think. if we need more developers, lets get on sf and see if anyone is interested. we can put up a help wanted so people know. maybe the wxforum can help, any other ideas? we are the primary developers, we know the insides the best between us all, but we can only do so much in a given amount of time per each of us. will that make you feel better? oh, stc did add some functionality too, i merged it into my wxScintilla, but now that they are working on it, i think that stc is the right way to go for the official scintilla editor backend, using xstc of course. they changed the library name to wxscintilla, so that was a bit confusing at first, that is why i thought they had both in the source tree at first, probably why i was told that by someone too. offical wxScitilla is dead and might as well be ignored. i am keeping mine updated, because when i am done building my text editor i am going to hack wxScintila to optionally let the user set an image background and i can't have a textctrl base in the way. Nuklear On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote: > It's certainly not a bad suggestion. Plus, it is a question that we will > probably get from many, many other people. > > Although I'm not opposed to the idea of just modifying Code::Blocks, my > purpose behind this project is to build an IDE from scratch just to get the > experience and satisfaction of doing so. To me, this is more about the > journey than the destination. > > I have no idea how long this project will take and haven't even given > consideration to timelines at this point (other than the timeline of when we > start). That's the reason I wanted to get version 7 of wxDev-C++ finished > before we started this. If it takes several years and we still don't have > anything useful, then at least we have wxDev-C++ out there. > > -Tony > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote: > >> Hi, in advance, please forgive me if someone has already suggested this >> (maybe even I could have dismissed a similar suggestion, I just don't recall >> right now :D ). >> >> I don't want to introduce controversy at this point but I think this needs >> to be at least considered and discussed as an option. >> >> I have always had my concerns in regards to the effectiveness of starting >> an IDE again from 0, mostly because I've seen time and time again, open >> source projects get abandoned before actually being useful or close to >> "version 1.0" form. I don't want to be negative, but from all signs, at >> least as of now, we don't look to have enough man power to get this project >> to a useful state in an acceptable time frame.. (like less than 2 or 3 >> years). When I say "acceptable", I'm thinking, before our lives have a >> chance of changing enough that most of us are no longer able to keep working >> on this, while having at least a mature enough product that may attract some >> other devels to continue the work at that point, if such thing happens. >> >> Anyway, I know that having full control of the code from day zero would be >> great, but I'm thinking.... how about we grab Code::Blocks code, and try to >> morph its GUI to look and act just like we want wxDevIDE to be (alas, like >> wxDevCpp)? >> >> This software appears to have such strong foundation; it is popular, it >> has already plugin infrastructure built in, it has even many plugins >> already, and support for several compilers. I think it would be a little >> silly to replicate that work, if we care mostly for how it works for the end >> user... >> >> Someone could say that we could end up in a similar position as we were >> with wxDevCpp, in that we may en up depending from "others" work, but I >> think that the difference here is that we are now in wxWidgets/C++ camp, so >> we no longer have the delphi limitations for doing whatever changes we feel >> we need to do. For example, if they don't use wxScintilla or whatever for >> the editor, we can develop our one component. >> >> I think this approach has many benefits: First, MUCH faster and realistic >> time to come up with a 1.0 version. If this version actually sees the light >> of day, that means that our work would not be in vane. Second, better reuse >> of open source code. Also, our plugins, or other improvements could >> theoretically be retro-added to C::B, giving them some benefits. Fourth, we >> have potentially more developers able to develop plugins. I think there are >> more, but I don't want to extend this message much more. >> >> If this was already suggested, I would like to read again why we didn't >> like this option :) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> ¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web! >> Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8. >> http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference >> _______________________________________________ >> Wxdevide-devs mailing list >> Wxd...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > Wxdevide-devs mailing list > Wxd...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs > > |
