|
|
|
|
|
by fuzztester
587 days ago
|
|
Better than that would be a language that doesn't require / almost compel users (by "almost compel", I mean the user community, obviously, not the language literally, since it is not sentient) to use an IDE in order to use the language, and using which (language) you can still do what you said above, by just using a text editor. In the same vein as what you said here about orthogonality ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42097347 ), programming languages and IDEs should be orthogonal (and actually are, unless deliberately linked). People were using languages much before IDEs existed. And they got a hell of a lot done using the primitive surrounding tools that existed back then, including, you know, gems like Lisp and the concepts embodied in it, many of which have, much later, been adopted by many modern languages. And I still meant "almost compel", even by the community, because of course they cannot really compel you. I meant it in the sense of, for example, so many people using VS Code for programming posts. |
|
It's ironic that you complain about this because Zig is probably the most "normal editor" friendly programming language for exactly the kind of thing mentioned in the article.
I don't need an IDE to figure out the 12 options to that function and fill them out with the correct defaults. I don't have to hunt through 23 layers of mysterious header files to find the declaration I need to figure everything out. etc.
Just try figuring out a foo(12).bar(14).baz("HELP!").fixme("ARRGH!") construction chain in C++ or Rust without an IDE. Oof.
1) Zig doesn't encourage those and 2) in Zig I can trace the @import() calls and actually run "grep" on things.