I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
Vim all the way. For me, fits the Ruby mantra of keeping things simple but flexible.
···
On Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 3:33 pm, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM
for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
I use Vim, often from within an irb session via the interactive_editor
gem:
Use interactive_editor With irb For An Inside-Out Ruby IDE
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=4125
···
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 07:33:35AM +0900, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM
for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
I'm also a vi user.
I have a variation of interactive_editor I use inside irb and pry.
···
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mike Hansen <skrabbit@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for
a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
Emacs, as always. These days I also toss RubyMine into the mix for its
refactoring, Cucumber support, and project indexing. I set up a
keybinding to open files in Emacs for serious editing.
···
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mike Hansen <skrabbit@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for
a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
--
Avdi Grimm
Emacs and RubyMine, with some Eclipse and Aptana for multi-project setups.
···
On 2011-06-01, at 00:33, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
--
With kind regards
Uwe Kubosch
Kubosch Consulting
uwe@kubosch.no
I'm curious, anyone using Sublime Text? http://www.sublimetext.com/
I haven't been interested in a new pure text editor in a long time,
but I'm kind of impressed with its "minimap", among other things.
···
--
Avdi Grimm
(In the following, I will use "vi" to refer to vi-like editors in
general, including Vim. I will also use "Emacs" to refer to EMACS-like
editors, including GNU Emacs.)
Interesting . . . right away, when the question was first asked, several
vi users responded. A day later, I find that several Emacs users finally
responded as well. I can only surmise that the vi users responded more
quickly because vi helps people get things done more quickly.
No, no, I'm kidding. It was probably actually a result of Emacs' slow
startup time.
No, wait, I'm kidding about that too. The truth of the matter is that
both of these editors have some serious learning curves associated with
them. See the image illustrating those learning curves on this page:
Vim for New Users
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=981
In terms of what they provide to the person who scales that learning
curve, becoming an adept user of either one of these editors, the return
on investment is incredible. Each has its advantages over the other, of
course, and which you will prefer is a matter of preference more than
anything else, it seems -- though of course we (heavy vi and Emacs users)
are probably all afflicted by the sincere belief that one of them is
objectively superior to the other. It is taking a powerful act of will
to avoid turning this email into a platform for extolling the virtues of
the vi way of doing things. I really do not want to be accused of
starting a flamewar with a partisan attack in this email.
Ultimately, however, my thought is that if you are already comfortable
with either vi or Emacs, you should use it anywhere that it is at all
reasonable to do so. While other editors may provide some handy features
that make them particularly useful in certain contexts, such as Redcar[0]
for Ruby development, those features' payoff is limited -- and it goes
away the moment you start working on a different task.
Meanwhile:
* The payoff for using the vi or Emacs way of doing things applies in
almost every single situation where entering or altering text is the
task at hand.
* The benefits of these editors are not limited to context-specific
features like those of Visual Studio[0] (or whatever); they grow
endlessly over time, as you learn more about how to use them, tweak
them to suit your personal preferences, and acquire the knack of
applying them effectively in more situations.
* They are *everywhere*, while other choices like TextMate[1] are
generally much more platform-dependent.
* They aren't going anywhere. As long-established staples of open source
software culture used by more people than almost any other piece of
open source software, their durability in the face of developers and
vendors getting hit by buses, going out of business, suffering
crippling RSI that prevents them from coding[2], or just getting bored
with them and ceasing to perform needed maintenance on them is nearly
unmatched in the world of software development. The same cannot be
said of UltraEdit's[1] futureproofing.
Ultimately, there probably isn't much reason to switch editors if you are
already comfortable, and gaining increasing proficiency, with vi or
Emacs. If you have never used either, though, and do a lot of coding,
you should probably give each of them enough of a try to get past the
point where you feel completely helpless, then pick the one whose
"philosophy" best suits your taste and stick with it long enough to start
feeling its benefits. At that point, give it up if you don't like it,
but if you do a lot of coding (especially in high-level dynamic languages
like Ruby) you will probably get to love one of these editors --
especially if you spend a lot of time in a Unix-like environment.
## NOTES:
[0]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is basically just a
placeholder for "pretty much every editor in the world that is not
vi-like or Emacs-like".
[1]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is a basically just a
placeholder for a sizable subset of the applications from note [0].
TextMate users in particular should not take it personally; I'm sure it
is a wonderful editor, despite its platform snobbery.
[2]: I hear this happened to Richard Stallman, famous for his involvement
in the early development of the original EMACS and for his ongoing
maintenance of GNU Emacs (when he wasn't suffering crippling RSI).
···
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
PS: I should probably polish this lengthy ramble into an article for
TechRepublic at some point.
Hello,
···
On 01 Ιουν 2011, at 1:33 π.μ., Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
TextMate on Mac. If you don't want to pay you can try TextWrangler but you loose a couple of sweet options like "on the fly compile/interpret" etc, that comes with textmate.
On linux I use vim with a couple of .vimrc lines in order to emulate textmate's behavior.
Best Regards,
--
Panagiotis Atmatzidis
email: ml@convalesco.org
blog: http://www.convalesco.org
The wise man said: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Vim too here. There's only one real downside here (for me, anyway): I'm
used to languages using parenthesis and thus I'm used to navigate a lot
with the % key (jump between parenthesis). Not so with ruby, to my
knowledge there's nothing you can make % to do jump between opening
begin/class/etc. and closing end. Would love be proved otherwise here.
- Markus
···
On 01.06.2011 00:36, David Jacobs wrote:
Vim all the way. For me, fits the Ruby mantra of keeping things simple but flexible.
SciTE. I do mostly 'NIX coding -- lots of processes and SHM -- but it's nice that I can use it when I have to whack a ruby client for a doze laptop. Syntax highlighting is a plus and it's really easy to get Doze users up to speed on it. Also easy to customize fonts et al.
I just have never really gotten used to the dual-mode editing that VI is based on. :-%
···
-----Original Message-----
From: David Jacobs [mailto:developer@wit.io]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:36 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: What editor or IDE do you use?
Vim all the way. For me, fits the Ruby mantra of keeping things simple but flexible.
On Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 3:33 pm, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM
for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
I do everything in the terminal - usually a Screen session with windows for
bash, Emacs, rails console, and rails server. Back when I used IDEs, I
started with Eclipse + Aptana and later NetBeans, which was actually quite
good, but I would say I'm many times faster now using simpler tools than I
ever was with an integrated package.
···
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Avdi Grimm <groups@inbox.avdi.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mike Hansen <skrabbit@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM
for
> a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.Emacs, as always. These days I also toss RubyMine into the mix for its
refactoring, Cucumber support, and project indexing. I set up a
keybinding to open files in Emacs for serious editing.--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for
a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.Emacs, as always. These days I also toss RubyMine into the mix for its
refactoring, Cucumber support, and project indexing. I set up a
keybinding to open files in Emacs for serious editing.
Brave move Avi :). I would never suggest vim to an experienced emacs
user and never emacs to an experienced vim user. The reason being that
Emacs is better than Vim *and* Vim is better than Emacs of course.
To OP eventually, now, if you are fine with vim there are few reasons
to change, there are marvelous plugins for Ruby and Rails and Git
and...
Redcar has made promising progress, the last time I checked, it is
quite nice now, I feel it deserves some publicity here.
Cheers
Robert
···
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Avdi Grimm <groups@inbox.avdi.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mike Hansen <skrabbit@comcast.net> wrote:
--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
--
You’ll never be up to date, but you can be ahead
-- Kent Beck
...if you're using a Mac, you might consider TextMate...it directly supports: Ruby, Ruby on Rails and Git...
...it's well worth its cost, about $25...
...many of the Ruby and RoR books recommend it...
···
----- Original Message ----- From: "Uwe Kubosch" <uwe@kubosch.no>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: What editor or IDE do you use?
On 2011-06-01, at 00:33, Mike Hansen wrote:
I'm pretty new to Ruby. What editor or IDE do you use? I usually use VIM for a lot of my coding. Rubymine looks pretty cool.
Emacs and RubyMine, with some Eclipse and Aptana for multi-project setups.
--
With kind regards
Uwe Kubosch
Kubosch Consulting
uwe@kubosch.no
http://kubosch.no/
New POLL!!!
Which layout do you prefer?
QWERTY
DVORAK
PROGRAMMER DVORAK
COLEMAK
=)
···
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
(In the following, I will use "vi" to refer to vi-like editors in
general, including Vim. I will also use "Emacs" to refer to EMACS-like
editors, including GNU Emacs.)Interesting . . . right away, when the question was first asked, several
vi users responded. A day later, I find that several Emacs users finally
responded as well. I can only surmise that the vi users responded more
quickly because vi helps people get things done more quickly.No, no, I'm kidding. It was probably actually a result of Emacs' slow
startup time.No, wait, I'm kidding about that too. The truth of the matter is that
both of these editors have some serious learning curves associated with
them. See the image illustrating those learning curves on this page:Vim for New Users
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=981In terms of what they provide to the person who scales that learning
curve, becoming an adept user of either one of these editors, the return
on investment is incredible. Each has its advantages over the other, of
course, and which you will prefer is a matter of preference more than
anything else, it seems -- though of course we (heavy vi and Emacs users)
are probably all afflicted by the sincere belief that one of them is
objectively superior to the other. It is taking a powerful act of will
to avoid turning this email into a platform for extolling the virtues of
the vi way of doing things. I really do not want to be accused of
starting a flamewar with a partisan attack in this email.Ultimately, however, my thought is that if you are already comfortable
with either vi or Emacs, you should use it anywhere that it is at all
reasonable to do so. While other editors may provide some handy features
that make them particularly useful in certain contexts, such as Redcar[0]
for Ruby development, those features' payoff is limited -- and it goes
away the moment you start working on a different task.Meanwhile:
* The payoff for using the vi or Emacs way of doing things applies in
almost every single situation where entering or altering text is the
task at hand.* The benefits of these editors are not limited to context-specific
features like those of Visual Studio[0] (or whatever); they grow
endlessly over time, as you learn more about how to use them, tweak
them to suit your personal preferences, and acquire the knack of
applying them effectively in more situations.* They are *everywhere*, while other choices like TextMate[1] are
generally much more platform-dependent.* They aren't going anywhere. As long-established staples of open source
software culture used by more people than almost any other piece of
open source software, their durability in the face of developers and
vendors getting hit by buses, going out of business, suffering
crippling RSI that prevents them from coding[2], or just getting bored
with them and ceasing to perform needed maintenance on them is nearly
unmatched in the world of software development. The same cannot be
said of UltraEdit's[1] futureproofing.Ultimately, there probably isn't much reason to switch editors if you are
already comfortable, and gaining increasing proficiency, with vi or
Emacs. If you have never used either, though, and do a lot of coding,
you should probably give each of them enough of a try to get past the
point where you feel completely helpless, then pick the one whose
"philosophy" best suits your taste and stick with it long enough to start
feeling its benefits. At that point, give it up if you don't like it,
but if you do a lot of coding (especially in high-level dynamic languages
like Ruby) you will probably get to love one of these editors --
especially if you spend a lot of time in a Unix-like environment.## NOTES:
[0]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is basically just a
placeholder for "pretty much every editor in the world that is not
vi-like or Emacs-like".[1]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is a basically just a
placeholder for a sizable subset of the applications from note [0].
TextMate users in particular should not take it personally; I'm sure it
is a wonderful editor, despite its platform snobbery.[2]: I hear this happened to Richard Stallman, famous for his involvement
in the early development of the original EMACS and for his ongoing
maintenance of GNU Emacs (when he wasn't suffering crippling RSI).--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]PS: I should probably polish this lengthy ramble into an article for
TechRepublic at some point.
Details . . . ?
···
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:34:49PM +0900, Panagiotis Atmatzidis wrote:
On linux I use vim with a couple of .vimrc lines in order to emulate textmate's behavior.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Excerpts from Markus Fischer's message of Wed Jun 01 00:42:03 +0200 2011:
begin/class/etc. and closing end. Would love be proved otherwise here.
get matchit.zip !
Thet let's you dynamically add more pairs using b:match_words which
should already be implemented for ruby.
(I recommend using vim-addon-manager for installing plugins)
Marc Weber
Jeez... BSD or Linux... or Doze?
Enough already... back to our regularly scheduled Ruby questions! 
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Stu [mailto:stu@rubyprogrammer.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:03 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: What editor or IDE do you use?
New POLL!!!
Which layout do you prefer?
QWERTY
DVORAK
PROGRAMMER DVORAK
COLEMAK
=)
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
(In the following, I will use "vi" to refer to vi-like editors in
general, including Vim. I will also use "Emacs" to refer to EMACS-like
editors, including GNU Emacs.)Interesting . . . right away, when the question was first asked, several
vi users responded. A day later, I find that several Emacs users finally
responded as well. I can only surmise that the vi users responded more
quickly because vi helps people get things done more quickly.No, no, I'm kidding. It was probably actually a result of Emacs' slow
startup time.No, wait, I'm kidding about that too. The truth of the matter is that
both of these editors have some serious learning curves associated with
them. See the image illustrating those learning curves on this page:Vim for New Users
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=981In terms of what they provide to the person who scales that learning
curve, becoming an adept user of either one of these editors, the return
on investment is incredible. Each has its advantages over the other, of
course, and which you will prefer is a matter of preference more than
anything else, it seems -- though of course we (heavy vi and Emacs users)
are probably all afflicted by the sincere belief that one of them is
objectively superior to the other. It is taking a powerful act of will
to avoid turning this email into a platform for extolling the virtues of
the vi way of doing things. I really do not want to be accused of
starting a flamewar with a partisan attack in this email.Ultimately, however, my thought is that if you are already comfortable
with either vi or Emacs, you should use it anywhere that it is at all
reasonable to do so. While other editors may provide some handy features
that make them particularly useful in certain contexts, such as Redcar[0]
for Ruby development, those features' payoff is limited -- and it goes
away the moment you start working on a different task.Meanwhile:
* The payoff for using the vi or Emacs way of doing things applies in
almost every single situation where entering or altering text is the
task at hand.* The benefits of these editors are not limited to context-specific
features like those of Visual Studio[0] (or whatever); they grow
endlessly over time, as you learn more about how to use them, tweak
them to suit your personal preferences, and acquire the knack of
applying them effectively in more situations.* They are *everywhere*, while other choices like TextMate[1] are
generally much more platform-dependent.* They aren't going anywhere. As long-established staples of open source
software culture used by more people than almost any other piece of
open source software, their durability in the face of developers and
vendors getting hit by buses, going out of business, suffering
crippling RSI that prevents them from coding[2], or just getting bored
with them and ceasing to perform needed maintenance on them is nearly
unmatched in the world of software development. The same cannot be
said of UltraEdit's[1] futureproofing.Ultimately, there probably isn't much reason to switch editors if you are
already comfortable, and gaining increasing proficiency, with vi or
Emacs. If you have never used either, though, and do a lot of coding,
you should probably give each of them enough of a try to get past the
point where you feel completely helpless, then pick the one whose
"philosophy" best suits your taste and stick with it long enough to start
feeling its benefits. At that point, give it up if you don't like it,
but if you do a lot of coding (especially in high-level dynamic languages
like Ruby) you will probably get to love one of these editors --
especially if you spend a lot of time in a Unix-like environment.## NOTES:
[0]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is basically just a
placeholder for "pretty much every editor in the world that is not
vi-like or Emacs-like".[1]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is a basically just a
placeholder for a sizable subset of the applications from note [0].
TextMate users in particular should not take it personally; I'm sure it
is a wonderful editor, despite its platform snobbery.[2]: I hear this happened to Richard Stallman, famous for his involvement
in the early development of the original EMACS and for his ongoing
maintenance of GNU Emacs (when he wasn't suffering crippling RSI).--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]PS: I should probably polish this lengthy ramble into an article for
TechRepublic at some point.
Details . . . ?
Janus is sometimes described as being textmate for vim:
opinions on redcar?
···
2011/5/31 Marc Weber <marco-oweber@gmx.de>
Excerpts from Markus Fischer's message of Wed Jun 01 00:42:03 +0200 2011:
> begin/class/etc. and closing end. Would love be proved otherwise here.get matchit.zip !
Thet let's you dynamically add more pairs using b:match_words which
should already be implemented for ruby.
(I recommend using vim-addon-manager for installing plugins)Marc Weber