|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ |
|
|
You appear to be advocating a new: |
|
|
|
|
|
[ ] cloud-hosted [ ] locally installable [ ] web-based [ ] browser-based [ ] language-agnostic [ ] language-specific IDE. Your IDE will not succeed. Here is why it will not succeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
You appear to believe that: |
|
|
[ ] Syntax highlighting is what makes programming difficult |
|
|
[ ] Garbage collection is free |
|
|
[ ] Computers have infinite memory |
|
|
[ ] Nobody really needs: |
|
|
[ ] a REPL [ ] debugger support [ ] a local filesystem |
|
|
[ ] to interact with code not written in your IDE's preferred language |
|
|
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII |
|
|
[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy |
|
|
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a new IDE will be easy |
|
|
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy |
|
|
[ ] Programmers love learning new keybindings |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, your IDE (has/lacks): |
|
|
[ ] vi keybindings |
|
|
[ ] emacs keybindings |
|
|
[ ] Syntax highlighting |
|
|
[ ] User-configurable indentation |
|
|
[ ] Macros |
|
|
[ ] Written in JavaScript [ ] Written not in JavaScript |
|
|
[ ] Written in a scripting language you made up |
|
|
[ ] Written in JSON |
|
|
[ ] A windowing system |
|
|
[ ] Version control |
|
|
[ ] Only using git [ ] only using github.com [ ] not using git |
|
|
[ ] using an RCS of your own devising |
|
|
[ ] Its own platform-independent look-and-feel |
|
|
[ ] that was designed by a programmer |
|
|
[ ] based on yesterday's design fads |
|
|
[ ] applied inconsistently |
|
|
[ ] A look and feel specific to one operating system |
|
|
[ ] that was last widely used in 1989 |
|
|
[ ] and was known to cause seizures |
|
|
|
|
|
The following philosophical objections apply: |
|
|
[ ] Programmers should not need to understand CSS to change their font |
|
|
[ ] The most significant program written using your IDE is itself |
|
|
[ ] The most significant program written using your UDE isn't even itself |
|
|
[ ] The implementation is closed-source |
|
|
[ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you |
|
|
[ ] The DOM is not an application framework |
|
|
[ ] The name of your IDE makes it impossible to find on Google |
|
|
[ ] Your IDE assumes JavaScript can be made infinitely fast |
|
|
[ ] You seem to think static analysis is worthless |
|
|
|
|
|
Your implementation has the following flaws: |
|
|
[ ] JavaScript is not faster than C, C++, or Java |
|
|
[ ] The DOM is not a windowing framework |
|
|
[ ] It crashes on any file larger than 32k |
|
|
[ ] You provide no way for users to run the program they are editing |
|
|
[ ] You require the user to check in code before it can be run |
|
|
[ ] The IDE crashes if you look at it funny |
|
|
[ ] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques |
|
|
[ ] You think a single string is an acceptable data type for a text editor |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, your marketing has the following problems: |
|
|
[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity |
|
|
[ ] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use" |
|
|
[ ] Obviously faked screenshots |
|
|
[ ] No one really believes that your IDE is faster than: |
|
|
[ ] vi [ ] emacs [ ] Eclipse [ ] Visual Studio [ ] IntelliJ [ ] Notepad |
|
|
[ ] Rejection of orthodox user interface design without justification |
|
|
[ ] Rejection of usability principles without justification |
|
|
[ ] Rejection of established platform conventions without justification |
|
|
[ ] Rejection of basic user interaction without justification |
|
|
|
|
|
Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that: |
|
|
[ ] Your example workflow would be one key command in: _______________________ |
|
|
[ ] We already have an IDE in the browser |
|
|
[ ] We already have an IDE that can be scripted using |
|
|
[ ] Python [ ] JavaScript [ ] A Lisp [ ] Lua |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented vi but worse |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented emacs but worse |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented TextMate but worse |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented Eclipse but worse |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented Notepad but worse |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented Notebad better, but that's still no justification |
|
|
[ ] You have reinvented ed but non-ironically |
|
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, this is what I think of you: |
|
|
[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. |
|
|
[ ] This is a bad IDE, and you should feel bad for creating it. |
|
|
[ ] Programming in this IDE is an adequate punishment for inventing it. |
munificent revised this gist