Plugins mean extensibility (Re: Kate part in KDevelop-2 working)

[Mathieu Chouinard]

On December 14, 2001 08:03 pm, you wrote:
> Hi
>
> > About vim and emacs: the kvim project seems to be very promising and its
> > author is a total "bonehead", because they are listing KDevelop as one of
> > the projects their part would find a use in. I haven't gotten around to
> > taking a closer look, but given the small size of vim core I assume it
> > will be a lighter and *definitely* more featureful editor than kate. I'm
> > not a vim user, but I've asked around and found that vim features an
> > "easy" mode similar in usage to other text editors. If I can get it to
> > compile I will ask kvim people to tell us if it's easy to use as a part
> > in gideon.
> >
> > I personally have other editors in mind, but notably NOT emacs because
> >   1) porting it is a PITA
> >   2) it's BIG
> > (tho' xemacs *is* my editor of choice for coding)
> >
> > Why would people want editors other than kate? The reason is simple, kate
> > may never fit _everybody_. So if people like it they use a kate part, if
> > they don't they use an X part.
>
> I speak here as a user/developer (but not as a kate developer)
>
> The big problem with all those open source projects, even those which I 
> work at, ist that the developers only code for fun, but don't really think
> about usability, GUI design, ...... And this is the point, why will loose
> in the long run and Microsoft (or other companies, which behave like them)
> will win. Even though their products are instable and have many design
> mistakes, they concentrate on only one thing and at least try to write
> usefull integrated applications. Look at our open source products. Look at
> gideon, or other IDEs, office packages, .... . They are all patchwork. Even
> they have good underlying technologies and are mostly quite stable, they
> are only patchwork, because we try to be over extensable. Look at gideon,
> there is now real GUI concept in it, at least I, and some of my friends
> (not KDE developers) see it that way. Microsoft offers one editor, which is
> fully integrated in ther IDEs, and always supports all features and even
> though many people think working with those IDE's is a pain, they use it,
> look at Borland and others, they all loose against Microsoft.
>
> All in all,I look indifferently at these editor interface quarrels, they
> are just a good example of wide spread, instead of concentrated efforts,
> and that's why Open Source, despite all other opinions will fail in the
> long run. Be it office packages, editors, IDEs, ...... .
>
No, I don't agree with you. You seems to ignore the basic Unix philosophy that 
said: "Every program do only one thing but do it well, and also there more 
than one way todo something" So what we try todo in gideon it's only to allow 
you to customize your IDE the way you want it. I came from an OS/2 background 
and the IDE from IBM was the OS/2 desktop with some extension but I was able 
to choose the editor that I want and with some minor hacks the compiler I 
wanted too. 



> I just want to say: Stop believing in over extensibility, which is not
> really needed, concentrate on the core. Gideon is a mess: many plugins, but
> not really a usefull common GUI.
If you don't like that way of doing things there are planty of other IDE on 
Linux (Or modify M$VisualC++ for compiling Unix prog on Winshit)
Mathieu

-- 
You're at the end of the road again.