The table below summarizes the responses to my question,
specifically, each respondent's choice of editor, debugger,
compiler, IDE, and background or experience. Individual comments
by the respondents follow.
Respondent Editor Compiler Debugger IDE Background
Jonathan Emacs gcc gdb Emacs GNOME Control
Jay Cox XEmacs Pro gdb, dbx XEmacs GIMP
Kurt vim egcs gdb None KDE
Carsten jed gcc None None Enlightenment
Andi vi gcc gdb XEmacs PHP
Eric Emacs gcc gdb Emacs Fetchmail
Linus Micro gcc None None Linux
Marius Emacs gcc gdb Emacs Guile+GTk
Alan Cox None gcc GNOME-terminal None Linux kernel
And now, the full responses to my question: Are you a CLI kind
of developer -- using vi, gcc, or gdb -- or do you prefer Emacs
or an IDE or something else altogether?
Well, like most linux developers, I suppose I am a CLI guy. I
develop almost entirely in Emacs, with many, many buffers open
(I have somewhere around 40 right now). I use a shell in Emacs
to run the application I'm developing, and generally debug using
Emacs's gdb mode. I also compile using compile mode within
Emacs. I use etags pretty extensively, as well as tab completion
and syntax color highlighting and formatting. Pretty standard
stuff, I guess. I also have a few templates written out to
automate some code generation, but they're somewhat specialized.
Right the first time! I use vim (Not just vi -- only vim will
do) with egcs and gdb. I've been known to try different IDEs
(KDevelop, Code Crusader, et al.) ... but I've never stuck with
one for more than a trial period.
We have pretty much moved to developing with Visual
Studio. However, we started with vi plus gcc plus gdb, and
that's what we use when we develop PHP on Linux. I personally
also like using XEmacs when working with other non-PHP Unix
Actually, I develop under IRIX. I am definitely a CLI
guy. Currently I'm using XEmacs plus MIPS/Pro C/C++ plus dbx,
though it wasn't that long ago I was using XEmacs plus egcs/gcc
Does XEmacs qualify as an IDE?
Eric S. Raymond
Emacs is my IDE. Yep, Emacs plus gcc plus gdb plus rcs.
o Tons of xterms
o Micro Emacs (which has nothing at all to do with GNU Emacs,
but is a very simple editor with basically the same
o make plus gcc, of course
I'm not a big believer in IDE's or in debuggers -- I tend to use
debuggers to see where a bug happens, and then I go back into
the source and try to understand the bug rather than try to look
at any specific case that made the bug happen. And IDEs tend to
be too limiting for me (I prefer having five different xterms
open, and to do anything I want in any of them).
And GNU Emacs is just evil. You can tell that it was designed in
a time when you only had one terminal, not many windows. So it
tries to do everything in the same window.
Yes, very much.
I use Emacs running under X11 as my UI, plus the usual
assortment of tools like make, gdb, gprof, autoconf, automake,
TeX. I also use xterms because I find their terminal emulation
to work better than the Emacs shell-mode.
I don't think there is anything special here: GNOME-terminal
windows, make, gcc -- and a second box for crashing with new