Recommended IDE...?

[Ovid]

> These "oh but emacs/vi/nano is great!" responses are really irrelevant.

I would almost claim that I get most of the common benefits of an IDE out of my vim setup (completion, debugging, testing, refactoring tools, rebuilding the project, and so on), but in watching other people use these tools, even if they've had years of experience, I still see them:
	* Open a file

	* Edit the file

	* Close the file

	* Run something from the command line

And a little part of me dies each time. May as well be using Notepad. If that's your workflow and your happy with it, that's OK, but you can't compare it to an IDE (except Eclipse: I've watched more than one developer struggle like mad using Eclipse because it has all the speed of a snail on downers.)

Cheers,
Ovid
--
IT consulting, training, international recruiting
       http://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/.
Buy my book! - http://bit.ly/beginning_perl
Live and work overseas - http://www.overseas-exile.com/



On Monday, 20 January 2014, 0:16, Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com> wrote:
 
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:18:14AM -0000, Andrew wrote:
>>> Looking to try using an Integrated Development Environment.
>>
>> Why? What problem are you having that you expect an IDE to solve?
>
>He wants to *try* it.
>
>> The features I find most compelling in IDEs is background parsing to
>> immediately spot syntax errors and be able to auto-complete or otherwise spot
>> typoes or confusion about what type a method returns. However, this only really
>> works with statically-typed compiled languages such as Java. Perl is very much
>> the antithesis of Java and you don't really get these benefits.
>
>Yes you do. It's 2014; parsing dynamic languages in IDEs is largely
>solved. Any difficulty in finding such a thing for Perl is more a
>reflection of Perl's status as a language in 2014 than any intrinsic
>technical difficulty.
>
>
>> They also provide various hot keys and shortcuts to perform test compiles, VCS
>> integration and whatnot, but that's really only of marginal benefit.
>
>Says you. Maybe the OP would like to *try* it and not have someone
>second guess their own motivations & preferences? Maybe they've read
>something like http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby/features/ and thought
>wouldn't they like that for perl?
>
>These "oh but emacs/vi/nano is great!" responses are really irrelevant.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>