[squeak-dev] Crazy idea for a programming editor in Squeak *for C*
hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Mon Mar 19 19:25:06 UTC 2018
Probably a better idea for a start
On 3/19/18, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Tim and Tim
> A very simple start could be a few lines of code which parse a
> methods. For each function a method.
> And a 'weight pragma in the method in order to maintain the sort order
> Then I can manipulate the methods containing the code strings in a
> Then with increased refactoring something more complex could be developed.
> This makes sense when developing Smalltalk code which needs some
> external C-functions as well.
> It might as well be useful to have a generator for Makefiles. Some of
> them are difficult to maintain.
> Best wishes
> On 3/19/18, Tm Jhnsn <digit at sonic.net> wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>> I would love to see this for C and/or Python. I too think it would
>> be possible and cool.
>> Maybe a new SHTextStyler subclass or two could come into play. And
>> Subprocess, down the line.
>> Erm, just had a flashback to what I know of the Smalltalk history of
>> the Eclipse IDE. ;)
>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:42 AM, tim Rowledge wrote:
>>> So thinking about things related to Subbu's questions it suddenly
>>> came to me that we might be able to make a much nicer C editor than
>>> most seem to be.
>>> Caution - I use TextWrangler on my iMac when I have to mess with C.
>>> This may well bias my opinion.
>>> Seems to me that most so called IDEs that let you handle C code are
>>> pretty pathetic. You load a file and scroll up and down it. If
>>> you're lucky it scans the file and makes sort of bookmark of
>>> function locations etc. You might get a half decent comparison tool
>>> to compare different versions.
>>> Now, we have a useful but in need of improvement tool for reading
>>> source code files without actually loading them in the
>>> FileContentsBrowser. A variant of that could read C source, split
>>> it up, parse the bits and bobs and maybe provide a decent
>>> structured view of the code.
>>> Yes, I remember ObjectWorks C++ and the debacle of C++ programmers
>>> not wanting anything more advanced than vi.
>>> There's also a possible value for this in the Python world where
>>> they at least pretend to have a clue about objects.
>>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know
>>> what you are talking about.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 14961 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Squeak-dev