Re: [DotGNU]IDE questions

[S11001001]

Tomislav Sajdl wrote:

> files, which is problem. What about idea to define in advance project file
> format for DotGNU? I would suggest it to be XML based. If we define all tags

Mr. Sugar's mention of this was in the context of his complaint about the 
development of _any_ special project file, XML or not. His original post said:

<<When one talks about IDE's in general, what I have always wanted was
something that integrated well with existing tools and practices.  Just
about every IDE I have ever seen insists on it's own specially formatted
"project file". What I would like is something that supports
autoconf/automake based build trees as we normally do them rather than a
foriegn project build format.>>

I totally agree with him on this point; I would like to see a development 
environment that only uses existing files; there seems to be enough information 
in existing build systems to build & coordinate a project, so why not rely on 
those files alone?

The closest he got to any sort of project file, XML included, was the mention 
of a /minimal/ project file that contained /minimal/ information.

Also, I would like to vote down the term 'IDE', as this implies a single 
program? The GDE (graphical development environment project, as I am calling it 
in the tasklist) will hopefully be quite different and more tolerable by 
experienced developers than 'IDE's.

--
Convention organizer to Linus Torvalds: "You might like to come with us
to some licensed[1] place, and have some pizza."

Linus: "Oh, I did not know that you needed a license to eat pizza".

[1] Licenced - refers in Australia to a restaurant which has government
licence to sell liquor.
        -- Linus at a talk at the Melbourne University