Re: [MiNT] QED

[p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk]

>---- Original Message ----
>
>> 2. Should I build this into QED or fork QED to keep QED small and lean?
>
>a) Fork qed.
>b) Don't fork, but make it possible to compile a plain text-editor as well 
>as the complete IDE.
>c) Don't integrate everything into one binary, but create several tools and 
>tie them together with a clever protocol.
>
>Personally I'd prefer (c). It's easier to create several small tools than 
>one huge program. And it's easier to debug and easier to maintain. You will 
>get the project to a usable state quicker, and it would be easier to extend 
>it with new tools later on.
>

I am not a Java fan either (nor C for that matter) but IDEA is a good IDE.

Whether you decide to branch QED or just develop it, the older versions
of QED will remain and there are other editors.

A set of tools would have to be well integrated to work well.

Are there any open source IDE projects we could borrow from ?

IDEA has loads of features, many of which I never use but here are some of 
the basic features I like and rely on, in no particular order.

Editor
* can jump from a variable/function use to it's definition
* can search code for usages of a function/object
* can see changed modules and which lines and rollback individual changes

CVS
* can compare local code with CVS rep
* can merge bits of code from CVS into local version
* easy to CVS update/commit/checkout/rollback

Debug
* easily set breakpoints in code
* can ignore breakpoints without having to remove them
* jump from errors to code
* can see all variable in scope and values

Peter