[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IDE
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: IDE |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:23:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:38:31 +0300
>>
>> On 10/10/2015 07:48 PM, Eric Ludlam wrote:
>>
>> > I had always intended CEDET to be a baseline for IDE like features.
>> > Looking just at tagging files, those familiar with it's internals
>> > recognize that it can use external tools as weak as ctags or GLOBAL, and
>> > can use a more powerful external tool for parsing as well, such as using
>> > JAVAC for decompiling .jar files into tags.
>>
>> It sounds good if all I have is a parser/tagger.
>>
>> But if I already have an external tool that can give me a set of
>> completions at a given position in a given buffer, and also provides a
>> go-to-definition feature, what's the advantage of going through
>> Semantic?
>
> One advantage that comes to mind is that you don't depend on an
> external tool whose development is beyond our control.
Well, we'd certainly like to depend on GCC.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: IDE, (continued)
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Przemysław Wojnowski, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Przemysław Wojnowski, 2015/10/15
- RE: IDE, Drew Adams, 2015/10/15
- Re: IDE, Tom, 2015/10/12
- RE: IDE, Drew Adams, 2015/10/12
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/10
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/12
- Re: IDE, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/11
- Re: IDE,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: IDE, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/15
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/11
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/15
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/12
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/13
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/14
- Re: IDE, Eric Ludlam, 2015/10/15
- Re: IDE, Przemysław Wojnowski, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/16
- Re: IDE, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/10/16