Re: IDE

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 10/18/2015 02:56 PM, David Engster wrote:

> In dynamic languages, you would mostly have tags with no specific type.

I'd say 50/50. Calls with implicit target can roughly be expected to 
have the current class (which can be determined lexically) as the 
target. Similarly for calls on 'this' or 'super'.

Add to this calls on variables that have been assigned a value 
instantiated in the current lexical scope (or, say, method), or the 
results of standard library calls that we've analyzed in advance, where 
we can determine the type of output. This kind of analysis would be 
better left to an external tool, though.

> It is only upstream, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is broken by now
> due to changes in mozrepl (this is why I don't like depending on
> external binaries). I don't code Javascript anymore.

Yes, it didn't seem to work last time I checked (a while ago). The 
implementation should be interesting anyway.

> Well, it's not like a bunch of people are hacking on the C
> parser. Several things happened:

It's not like I'm blaming anyone, really. But it leaves an impression of 
CEDET being more of a research project.

> - In general, hacking Emacs isn't as much fun as it used to be.

Many of us can sympathize, I'm sure.

> Yes, and do you know how the Jetbrains guys achieve this? They have an
> extensive framework for writing grammars, lexers, etc. Those guys are
> weird!

I'm sure that's not all they have. They have completion, and they have 
(at least some kind of) refactorings using the same interface across 
products. That hints at flexible coupling between components.

Or maybe not. EDE-like structure might work for them as well.

> > But I'd be ecstatic to even have a consistent UI for features that VS
> > Code (smaller cousin of Visual Studio) touts here:
> > https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/editingevolved
>
> Ever tried to load some random make-based C++ project into Visual C++?

It probably won't work. But so what? It's great that you have a solution 
for this in CEDET, but it shouldn't impose particular constraints on 
what a project API should look like. At least I don't see why or how it 
should.

My point was about user-facing features anyway. If we only provide them 
initially for languages with simpler/standardized dependency management, 
that would be a big step forward already.