Ask HN: I'm done with the IDE. What's a good alternative?

Re:Ask HN: I'm done with the IDE. What's a good alternative? by Someone on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:53AM (#1754739)

That depends on your definition of 'easy to parse'. For C and C++, you have the #include problem, macros whose definition isn't known until one calls the compiler. perl cannot be parses at all; there are cases where you must run a program to find out whether x is an identifier or a fiction name.

For Java, you can take a function in isolation, search its source file for import statements, and tell me what the variables, statements and expressions are. C# was in the same boat, but with LinQ, I think it gave up that idea. Now,

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: I'm done with the IDE. What's a good alternative? by chromatic on Monday October 04, 2010 @02:51AM (#1754836)

perl cannot be parses at all; there are cases where you must run a program to find out whether x is an identifier or a [function] name.

Nonsense. A very small category of behavior exists where static parsing of Perl 5 cannot determine whether a given program is valid. That's all. It's possible to write a pathological program which has two valid and working parses, but I've never seen it and it's an intellectual game, not a trap waiting to snare an unwary programmer.

(I have no idea what "an identifier or a function name" means, as Perl uses sigils to distinguish between variables and function names.)

See http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/08/on-parsing-perl-5.... for details.

[ Parent | on HN ]