in reply to Re: Professional Toolkits <=> vim + shell
in thread Professional Toolkits <=> vim + shell

You need IDEs for bureaucratic languages like Java. In Perl the language itself has a lot of power built-in and allows for concise programming. Thus it reduces the need for an IDE to do the work. Did you ever need to generate getter/setter methods in Perl? Perl is highly dynamic. Autoloading, eval on Strings and difficulties with introspection should give an IDE a hard nut to crack. I never considered using Perl-IDEs for that reason. Now a newcomer asks for a lot of money for a tool that I am not convinced is useful. I couldn't help, that the negative attitude came into my mind when I read the e-mail and wrote the node.

I hope that you are right, he is a smart guy and I discover that Perl-IDEs are not be such a bad thing as I initially thought.
Update:
And that is my new attitude now. :-)
  • Comment on Re^2: Professional Toolkits <=> vim + shell

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Professional Toolkits <=> vim + shell
by diotalevi (Canon) on Apr 05, 2006 at 22:11 UTC

    You didn't understand what I wrote. I didn't say a thing good or bad about perl IDEs. You were badmouthing the guy and I was calling you on that.

    ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

      If I might be so bold as to ask... whether or not referring to a cow-orker as being of "the M$ Visual Studio category" is badmouthing said cow-orker would depend upon your own opinion of those who might rightfully be considered to be in that category, and/or of the tool itself, wouldn't it?

        What other reason would a person have for even creating a category named like that, especially with the MS spelled with a $? I think it's pretty clear from the way FOSS types talk to each other what kind of name calling was going on here. If you aren't aware that a stereotypical FOSS characterization of MS stuff and the people people that use their software is negative, perhaps the former won't make as much sense.

        ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊