Re: IDE

[Eric Ludlam <eric@siege-engine.com>]

On 10/13/2015 12:28 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "John Wiegley" <johnw@newartisans.com> writes:
>
>>>>>>> Lluís  <xscript@gmx.net> writes:
>>
>>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>> For C/C++, the community has Irony and Rtags, both based on libclang. If
>>>>> libclang is unacceptable for you, you probably know a more appropriate
>>>>> mailing list to bring that up at.
>>
>>>> Let's not reiterate past discussions: you forget CEDET.
>>
>> CEDET first came out in 2003. If it were the answer to our present
>> questions, we would not be asking them.
>
> But since it did come out in 2003, we really should be asking _why_ it
> isn't the answer to our present questions, in order to avoid the effort
> of creating CEDET2 and CEDET3.

Based on the many emails I've seen on the topic, I suspect the answer is:

* It is hard to configure (ie - setting up project files,
   include paths, or whatever.)
* Specific implementations are incomplete (ie - c++ || other parser is
   imperfect, the project system doesn't implement some feature, etc)
* It is compared against better staffed tools

>> I'm willing to hear how CEDET can offer solutions to issues we've
>> brought up, but I won't curtail the discussion "because CEDET".
>
> I don't think the idea is to curtail it but rather to _shape_ it.  If we
> decide we need $x and CEDET provides $x, then either we haven't fully
> figured out the details of the $x we need or CEDET does something wrong
> when providing it.  Figuring out either will hopefully save us time in
> arriving at something actually doing what we want.

My main concern is about folks claiming CEDET is complicated (which it 
is) then oversimplifying the problem space to kick off some new thing 
which will likely end up just as complicated.

I know I thought the problem space seemed simple when I started.  I 
might not have started if I'd known how big it is.

Eric