rui wrote:
Netbeans ruby ide is pretty good:
The wiki has a lot more detail:
http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/Ruby
- Charlie
Well, that one is a project-wide grep, so to speak. I'd expect from Find Usages to understand the language, for instance, I select a method on some class definition and it finds those matches. Same for variables in a certain scope, etc.
In practice Find/Replace in Project with the ability of selecting which occurrences to act upon is good enough in my refactorings (as provided by TM). Of course the more intelligent the assistance the better, so that Find Usage, if it was as accurate as in a statically typed language it would be great.
-- fxn
···
On Aug 15, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Wayne E. Seguin wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:58 , Tim Bray wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:52 AM, harry pillei wrote:
I am looking into investing in an editor for working with ruby(including
rails), any recommendations?.
Experience and feedback appreciated.On the Mac, NetBeans is wicked fast. And, as of a couple of builds ago, it has an actual useful Find Usages. Find Usages!!!!! That's the single most important thing an IDE can do for you after the basic syntax help. Any other Ruby IDEs have that?
TextMate has a find in project which works similarly.
for rails I love roredit
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Indeed, in any programming forum or mailing list, the "which IDE / Editor...?" question is usually a good way to start small wars among fervent believers in a particular app. Take all with a grain of salt. The most commonly mentioned ones are all probably good for specific reasons that are important to different types of people.
Some editors/ IDEs are really good for 1 or a few languages. Some are all-around good but not great at any one language or purpose. (some people prefer that) Some are simply better integrated with other particular tools or platforms.
Still some are just what one person is used to using after a long time and they may not be willing or able to adapt to or try something different. (that's not necessarily bad either)
Try what is available to you. Don't shun or dismiss any of them until you try them. Most of them have at least one really cool feature that you will want or like. All of them have something you will dislike.
If you get lucky and find a good one right off or if you just stick with one of the first few you try, you may never know what else may be out there.
Find one that you feel you can be productive with. All the good ones will have a learning curve. There are usually some clever, cool tools in all of them that you may or may not discover for years!
···
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Kyle Schmitt wrote:
Dangerous q to ask here, you'll get 100 different answers from 50
different people
Kyle Schmitt wrote:
Dangerous q to ask here, you'll get 100 different answers from 50
different people
Indeed. It would be more useful to ask "who has experience with 2 editors or more and which of those editors do you think is better?" That way you could get statements like "I think A is better than B which is better than C" and with enough opinions we could theoretically get an overall picture.
Daniel
I just switched from textmate to ruby-netbeans.
Being an ide it can do semantic-level things an editor can't do
because it's aware of the code structure.
Among other things, it points out variables in the code that aren't
used (usually left over from some change). That's great. I also like
the 'find occurrences'.
It's also quite a good ruby editor. The ruby syntax coloring and
source formatting are as good as textmate. Many editors don't do that
well.
I've also tried eclipse-ruby, jedit, and probably every mac editor
there is. Right now I think netbeans is the best ruby editor around
and it's growing fast.
--Dave
···
On Aug 15, 10:56 am, Xavier Noria <f...@hashref.com> wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Wayne E. Seguin wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:58 , Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:52 AM, harry pillei wrote:>>> I am looking into investing in an editor for working with ruby
>>> (including
>>> rails), any recommendations?.
>>> Experience and feedback appreciated.>> On the Mac, NetBeans is wicked fast. And, as of a couple of
>> builds ago, it has an actual useful Find Usages. Find
>> Usages!!!!! That's the single most important thing an IDE can do
>> for you after the basic syntax help. Any other Ruby IDEs have that?> TextMate has a find in project which works similarly.
Well, that one is a project-wide grep, so to speak. I'd expect from
Find Usages to understand the language, for instance, I select a
method on some class definition and it finds those matches. Same for
variables in a certain scope, etc.In practice Find/Replace in Project with the ability of selecting
which occurrences to act upon is good enough in my refactorings (as
provided by TM). Of course the more intelligent the assistance the
better, so that Find Usage, if it was as accurate as in a statically
typed language it would be great.-- fxn
Daniel DeLorme wrote:
Kyle Schmitt wrote:
Dangerous q to ask here, you'll get 100 different answers from 50
different peopleIndeed. It would be more useful to ask "who has experience with 2
editors or more and which of those editors do you think is better?" That
way you could get statements like "I think A is better than B which is
better than C" and with enough opinions we could theoretically get an
overall picture.Daniel
I have experience with many more than two editors over the years, but
what I *use* is vim/gvim. It's strictly force of habit, though, and not
because I think it's fundamentally better in *any* way for *any* reason.
I'm quite suprised to see no one's posted emacs yet, so I'll be the first.
I'll admit I barely tried out Textmate, and only briefly toyed with RDT in
Eclipse, but after watching my boss use emacs to write ruby, I was quickly
sold on how productive I could be with it. I'd never used it before, and
thus had a rather steep learning curve to get over...but now I doubt I'd
trade it for much of anything to write ruby, until some of these other tools
get far more advanced than than they currently are when it comes to
refactoring support, etc.
Emacs combined with a knowledge of lisp and enough time, and you can pretty
well emulate most anything any of these others can do, granted with a fair
amount of code writing and tweaking. The up side to this is there's a lot of
smart people who have already done that for you, and there's ruby extensions
abound for emacs already, many of which I find quite useful.
Anyhow, my 2 cents.
Chris
Just to my 2 cents but I would like to hear from anyone that is using
"Ruby In Steel" from http://www.sapphiresteel.com/
For anyone that may not be familiar, it uses Visual Studio 2005 from the
"great Satan of the northwest" as I heard MS called at the Ruby Hoedown
this last weekend:-) You must have VS 2005, and then purchase Ruby In Steel
as an add in to VS.
I have used VS in many versions for more than 10 years and think it's a great
IDE. However the cost is high and before I spend the time and money for Ruby In
Steel it would be great to hear from someone that uses it on a regular basis.
Thanks,
Bill
Chris Thiel wrote:
... there's ruby extensions
abound for emacs already, many of which I find quite useful.
Anyhow, my 2 cents.Chris
Chris,
What tools do you use for running parts (or all) of the current buffer with Ruby or IRB? What other functionality do you use? I have inf-ruby installed, but haven't learned to use it. What tricks do you find most useful, and where do you get them? In short, is there any advice you could give about how to most efficiently use emacs for ruby development?
Thanks,
Dan
As a Microsoft ISV (boo hiss!) I use Visual Studio 2005 constantly.
I'm new to Ruby, but I'm evaluating Ruby in Steel. So far I like it.
I will probably use NetBeans for my Ruby development since I already
use it for Java on Linux and Solaris.
-Robert
···
On 8/15/07, Bill Plummer <bplummer@zapeng.com> wrote:
Just to my 2 cents but I would like to hear from anyone that is using
"Ruby In Steel" from http://www.sapphiresteel.com/For anyone that may not be familiar, it uses Visual Studio 2005 from the
"great Satan of the northwest" as I heard MS called at the Ruby Hoedown
this last weekend:-) You must have VS 2005, and then purchase Ruby In Steel
as an add in to VS.I have used VS in many versions for more than 10 years and think it's a great
IDE. However the cost is high and before I spend the time and money for Ruby In
Steel it would be great to hear from someone that uses it on a regular basis.Thanks,
Bill