octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: looking ahead to 3.6


From: John Swensen
Subject: Re: looking ahead to 3.6
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:13:03 -0500

On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:16 AM, some_guy wrote:

> 
> 
> Søren Hauberg wrote:
>> 
>> man, 14 02 2011 kl. 09:17 -0500, skrev John Swensen:
>> 
>>> I'm not sure about the ease of making an editor, but I'm assuming that
>>> is a wash.
>> 
>> Do we really need an editor? Can't we just pick a simple cross-platform
>> editor and extend it using plugins (or something like that) ? It would
>> be great if there was just some interface that an editor could
>> communicate with as that would allow plugins/extensions to be written
>> for several editors.
>> 
>> Søren
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> +1
> I don't want to learn a new editor for every program I use. What would help
> is to provide a way (like matlab's mlint.exe) to get my editor to understand
> what octave returns. This would allow for a plugin to be used with vim or
> editor of choice to help with debugging. If an octave-specific editor is
> made, I just hope there is a way to start octave without it, like some
> "command line only" mode.  
> 
> I guess anyone can contribute in whatever way they want, but in my list of
> things I want Octave to do better, an editor (and whatever GUI that comes
> with that) is at the bottom.  
> 
> On a different note, what if contributors put their mailing address on the
> website with a description of their contributions. That way users could vote
> with their wallet for features important to them (via check).
> 

When discussing an IDE, I think we need to always be cognizant of the type of 
Octave users that an IDE will target.  An IDE will *almost* exclusively be 
targeting people who are contemplating a switch from Matlab.  So, not to 
disregard your wishes, but you appear to not be the target audience.  I think I 
would like to focus on the "integrated" in IDE.  If I am going to make an IDE, 
it is going to have everything integrated.  If other Octave user only wish a 
few IDE-like features on top of their favorite editor, they can do those 
plugins or modify existing ones (e.g. Octave mode in Emacs).  I do not think 
that for the typical new user to have a partial IDE with an external editor 
will consider it an IDE, IMHO.

As to you second note, if there were enough people willing to contribute $$$ to 
Octave (which is evident that it isn't the case), I would be in favor of it all 
going to JWE so we could have at least one full time developer (and the one who 
knows Octave best) driving the bus.

John Swensen





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]