[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes. Although the complexity of the application,
the use of high level editing controls that are
inserting library objects, and so on influence my
decisions on this. Different languages require
different tools. XML is great for the overall
generic tool, but this falls apart in the crunch.
VRML is my best example. I need the IDE editor because:
1. The files are very big typically, and it is
hard to keep context in repeating objects. Even
then, using a brace-sensitive editor is good
for some tasks. Note the content is mostly long
strings of comma or space delimited numbers.
2. A character level sensitive app fails and
hunting and counting brackets is time consuming.
Although sometimes, it is easy to spot a mistake
in the raw, it takes practice and much familiarity
with the productions.
3. I need the ability to build pieces then
assemble these. There are pluses and minuses.
Unless one builds to precise measurements, the
effect of transforming (moving into place) the
local origin then scaling to size runs the
performance of the piece into the ground.
4. I need visual manipulation, that is, to
grab the object in a rendered window and
select an operation (eg, scale) to eyeball
the results. I need to visually inspect
library components and select them for
inclusion. See 3 for problems with that,
so optimizers are vital.
Note that there are multiple articles from
comp.text.sgml on this topic but that was
when markup was primarily, almost exclusively,
used for text document editing to hand off to
a batch renderer. We typically started out
with a structural editor, but as we got to know
the structures, moved to the venerable ASCII editor
for speed. Sometimes, debugging is easier that
way given a parser that provides accurate line
counts.
Also, intellisensible IDE editors often
try to *help* and do things like putting in the
quotes before one wants them, so when cutting and
pasting, it's easy to stuff the right thing into
the obscurely wrong place. That said, given a
rather large and complex application language
(eg, Schema), I use both most productively.
len
Andrzej Jan Taramina:
I believe this is a situation that somewhat parallels the use of IDE's in the
programming world. Most experienced and highly productive developers (in
my observations) use a decent editor (emacs, JPadPro, SlickEdit, or even vi)
coupled with a debugger. Graphical IDE's tend to be slow, bulky and just get
in the way for experienced developers (having built many hyper-performance
development teams). IDE's hold out the marketing promise of turning a
junior/intermediate/less experienced developer into a veteran hotshot.
Unfortunately the marketing hype does not deliver in the real world. Caveat
Emptor reins supreme.
My two cents worth....
|
