Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/25/04:33:39
Joshua Heyer wrote in message <34C64B34 DOT F13EAD53 AT geocities DOT com DOT NO DOT SPAM>...
>Alan Wilson wrote:
>
>> I have been following the posts of this group on and off for about a year
>> now. I know that there has been some debate as to which environment
users
>> of djgpp should use: RHIDE or EMACS?
>>
>> Which do you prefer? and why?
>
> I use RHIDE, because I learned 'C' with Borland's IDE's; I've tried
>EMACS,
>its very powerful, but it's just not what I'm used to. Also EMACS is very
>large.
Much (all?) of EMACS is written is a dialect of LISP, and so you can go in and
change EMACS to be how you like, really. And it uses so many key combinations
that you can manipulate text _very_ quickly once you get the hang of it. It
_does_ take a while to learn. I wanted to learn it so that I'd be able to
program using a UNIX account I have. -- But no, they have vi! :(
The great thing about RHIDE, IMHO, is that there is an integrated debugger
which is similar to gdb. EMACS is designed to work with the GNU debugger, gdb,
in a way that does not work in DOS. That means that you must suspend EMACS
(easy enough) and run gdb from the DOS command line.
I've heard people say here that it is just as easy to use gdb as an IDE's
integrated debugger, but I like being able to see many lines of source code,
with the current position highlighted, a watch window showing the states of
selected variables, and the ability to quickly edit the source as soon as I see
what the bug is.
I haven't been able to use gdb in such a way as to have all that going on
without entering lots of commands at each step, but I have only dabbled.
--Ed (Myknees)
- Raw text -