[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: ArachnoRuby -- a professional Ruby IDE

Ronald E Jeffries

12/11/2005 2:02:00 AM

Arachno seems nice at a quick glance. I don't agree with Lothar that
documentation would be a "waste of time", but it's his deal.

And I sure wish some of these projects would pick up on the Agile / XP thing of
releasing solid code every week. It's not really that hard to do ...

It does look interesting, thanks for the folks who posted about it.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.
11 Answers

tsumeruby

12/11/2005 8:40:00 AM

0

On Sunday 11 December 2005 11:02 am, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> Arachno seems nice at a quick glance. I don't agree with Lothar that
> documentation would be a "waste of time", but it's his deal.

Perhaps a waste of time to some people, but documentation comes very good to
new people who want to program ruby. I think Lothar has forgotten what its
like to be a new programmer.

Tsume

Ronald E Jeffries

12/11/2005 9:50:00 PM

0

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:39:34 +0900, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:

>On Sunday 11 December 2005 11:02 am, Ron Jeffries wrote:
>> Arachno seems nice at a quick glance. I don't agree with Lothar that
>> documentation would be a "waste of time", but it's his deal.
>
>Perhaps a waste of time to some people, but documentation comes very good to
>new people who want to program ruby. I think Lothar has forgotten what its
>like to be a new programmer.

Or even an old programmer who would like to know how to use Arachno well.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Patrick Hurley

12/12/2005 9:44:00 PM

0

On 12/11/05, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:39:34 +0900, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
>
> >On Sunday 11 December 2005 11:02 am, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> >> Arachno seems nice at a quick glance. I don't agree with Lothar that
> >> documentation would be a "waste of time", but it's his deal.
> >
> >Perhaps a waste of time to some people, but documentation comes very good to
> >new people who want to program ruby. I think Lothar has forgotten what its
> >like to be a new programmer.
>
> Or even an old programmer who would like to know how to use Arachno well.

I understand what you guys are saying, but if given the choice between
docs about the editor and a working Ruby macros with even a couple of
examples -- I know which I would pick.

pth

soxinbox

12/13/2005 1:02:00 AM

0

I think it should be free or have documentation. I don't think I should have
to invest both the time to figure out the editor without documentation, and
also pay for the product. I am willing to do either, but not both. After
using Arachno for the trial period, I am convinced it is a very good
product. I may decide to purchase in the future, but up till now, I can't
bring myself to pay $80 for an undocumented product.
Perhaps Lothar could trade free copies for documentation.

Some may have spotted the irony that I have already spent the time to learn
the tool, and would now not need the documentation. I am just stuborn that
way.

And just to reiterate, this is a great editor, and should be considered by
anyone that is developing ruby professionaly or can convince some corperate
behemoth to pay for it.

Wayne Vucenic

12/13/2005 8:11:00 AM

0

> I can't bring myself to pay $80...

Actually, it's US $59, with volume discounts starting at 2 licenses.

Wayne

---
Wayne Vucenic
No Bugs Software
"Ruby and C++ Agile Contract Programming in Silicon Valley"


On 12/12/05, soxinbox <faker@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think it should be free or have documentation. I don't think I should have
> to invest both the time to figure out the editor without documentation, and
> also pay for the product. I am willing to do either, but not both. After
> using Arachno for the trial period, I am convinced it is a very good
> product. I may decide to purchase in the future, but up till now, I can't
> bring myself to pay $80 for an undocumented product.
> Perhaps Lothar could trade free copies for documentation.
>
> Some may have spotted the irony that I have already spent the time to learn
> the tool, and would now not need the documentation. I am just stuborn that
> way.
>
> And just to reiterate, this is a great editor, and should be considered by
> anyone that is developing ruby professionaly or can convince some corperate
> behemoth to pay for it.

tony summerfelt

12/13/2005 1:29:00 PM

0

soxinbox wrote on 12/12/2005 8:07 PM:

> to invest both the time to figure out the editor without documentation,

"figure it out"

i'm productive with both komodo and arachno-ruby...i didn't need to
figure anything out. i just used it.

granted, it wasn't 2 hours before a major project was due that i fired
up one of them and decided i needed to learn them as i was fnishing up
code...

i find both komodo and arachnoruby relatively intuitive. took me a few
minutes to get comfortable with each.

i'm sure if lothar gets annoyed enough at answering questions that
should in documentation he might release something...i'd much prefer
arachnoruby gets worked on before any time is spent on the docs...
and
> also pay for the product. I am willing to do either, but not both. After
> using Arachno for the trial period, I am convinced it is a very good
> product. I may decide to purchase in the future, but up till now, I can't
> bring myself to pay $80 for an undocumented product.
> Perhaps Lothar could trade free copies for documentation.
>
> Some may have spotted the irony that I have already spent the time to learn
> the tool, and would now not need the documentation. I am just stuborn that
> way.
>
> And just to reiterate, this is a great editor, and should be considered by
> anyone that is developing ruby professionaly or can convince some corperate
> behemoth to pay for it.
>
>
>
>


--
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ts...
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org

Christer Nilsson

12/13/2005 2:09:00 PM

0

tony summerfelt wrote:
>i'm productive with both komodo and arachno-ruby...

tony,

can you tell as about any debugger speed differences between komodo and
arachno?

what reasons do you see for using both?

christer

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Jeff Wood

12/13/2005 5:57:00 PM

0

Arachnos debugger is best-in-class... it *BY FAR* out runs any of the other
IDE debuggers...

j.

On 12/13/05, Christer Nilsson <janchrister.nilsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> tony summerfelt wrote:
> >i'm productive with both komodo and arachno-ruby...
>
> tony,
>
> can you tell as about any debugger speed differences between komodo and
> arachno?
>
> what reasons do you see for using both?
>
> christer
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-....
>
>


--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang...

Jeff Wood

Pete

12/13/2005 6:13:00 PM

0

I personally think it's a pain...

arachno:

last update: August(!)
status: at most beta
documentation: close to non-existent
rails-support: hidden but there

komodo:
ruby support: very rudimentary, just to say "we can do ruby",
probably initiated by marketing wussies
rails support: err, say what?

TextMate:
mac-os-only *aarg*

On Windows, I suggest (and use)


http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.1.1-200509290840/eclipse-SDK-3.1.1...

with

http://sourceforge.net/projects/r...

and

http://www.eclipse.or...

What you guys use?


Regards
Peter


> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Jeff Wood <jeff.darklight@gmail.com>
> An: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML)
> Betreff: Re: ArachnoRuby -- a professional Ruby IDE
> Datum: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:57:00 +0900
>
> Arachnos debugger is best-in-class... it *BY FAR* out runs any of the
> other
> IDE debuggers...
>
> j.
>
> On 12/13/05, Christer Nilsson <janchrister.nilsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > tony summerfelt wrote:
> > >i'm productive with both komodo and arachno-ruby...
> >
> > tony,
> >
> > can you tell as about any debugger speed differences between komodo and
> > arachno?
> >
> > what reasons do you see for using both?
> >
> > christer
> >
> > --
> > Posted via http://www.ruby-....
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang...
>
> Jeff Wood
>


tony summerfelt

12/13/2005 6:29:00 PM

0

Christer Nilsson wrote on 12/13/2005 9:09 AM:

> can you tell as about any debugger speed differences between komodo and
> arachno?

i much prefer the debugger in arachnoruby. i often need to debug
threads and it's a breeze using the arachnoruby debugger for that. and
of course it's faster. i found ruby thread debugging in komodo a bit
confusing, but it's entirely possible that i'm too used to using
arachnoruby for that

> what reasons do you see for using both?

for myself i also write perl and tcl/tk code and komodo is one stop
shopping there. i had komodo registered before the full ruby support
was added.

if i was only writing in ruby i'd would use arachnoruby exclusively.
and even though it's still an early release it's completely usable
for me...

--
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ts...
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org