I was going to create the C++ IDE Vim extendable plugin. It is not a problem to make one which will satisfy my own needs.
This plugin was going to work with workspaces, projects and its dependencies.
This is for unix like system with gcc as c++ compiler.
So my question is what is the most important things you'd need from an IDE? Please take in account that this is Vim, where almost all, almost, is possible.
Several questions:
How often do you manage different workspaces with projects inside them and their relationships between them? What is the most annoying things in this process.
Is is necessary to recreate "project" from the Makefile?
Thanks.
Reason to create this plugin:
With a bunch of plugins and self written ones we can simulate most of things. It is ok when we work on a one big "infinitive" project.
Good when we already have a makefile or jam file. Bad when we have to create our owns, mostly by copy and paste existing.
All ctags and cscope related things have to know about list of a real project files. And we create such ones. This <project#get_list_of_files()> and many similar could be a good project api function to cooperate with an existing and the future plugins.
Cooperation with an existing makefiles can help to find out the list of the real project files and the executable name.
With plugin system inside the plugin there can be different project templates.
Above are some reasons why I will start the job. I'd like to hear your one.
There are multiple problems. Most of them are already solved by independent and generic plugins.
Regarding the definition of what is a project.
Given a set of files in a same directory, each file can be the unique file of a project -- I always have a tests/ directory where I host pet projects, or where I test the behaviour of the compiler. On the opposite, the files from a set of directories can be part of a same and very big project.
In the end, what really defines a project is a (leaf) "makefile" -- And why restrict ourselves to makefiles, what about scons, autotools, ant, (b)jam, aap? And BTW, Sun-Makefiles or GNU-Makefiles ?
Moreover, I don't see any point in having vim know the exact files in the current project. And even so, the well known project.vim plugin already does the job. Personally I use a local_vimrc plugin (I'm maintaining one, and I've seen two others on SF). With this plugin, I just have to drop a _vimrc_local.vim file in a directory, and what is defined in it (:mappings, :functions, variables, :commands, :settings, ...) will apply to each file under the directory -- I work on a big project having a dozen of subcomponents, each component live in its own directory, has its own makefile (not even named Makefile, nor with a name of the directory)
Regarding C++ code understanding
Every time we want to do something complex (refactorings like rename-function, rename-variable, generate-switch-from-current-variable-which-is-an-enum, ...), we need vim to have an understanding of C++. Most of the existing plugins rely on ctags. Unfortunately, ctags comprehension of C++ is quite limited -- I have already written a few advanced things, but I'm often stopped by the poor information provided by ctags. cscope is no better. Eventually, I think we will have to integrate an advanced tool like elsa/pork/ionk/deshydrata/....
NB: That's where, now, I concentrate most of my efforts.
Regarding Doxygen
I don't known how difficult it is to jump to the doxygen definition associated to a current token. The first difficulty is to understand what the cursor is on (I guess omnicppcomplete has already done a lot of work in this direction). The second difficulty will be to understand how doxygen generate the page name for each symbol from the code.
Opening vim at the right line of code from a doxygen page should be simple with a greasemonkey plugin.
Regarding the debugger
There is the pyclewn project for those that run vim under linux, and with gdb as debugger. Unfortunately, it does not support other debuggers like dbx.
Responses to other requirements:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
My BuildToolsWrapper plugin has a g:BTW_run_parameters option (easily overridden with project/local_vimrc solutions). Adding a mapping to ask the arguments to use is really simple. (see :h inputdialog())
work with source control system
There already exist several plugins addressing this issue. This has nothing to do with C++, and it must not be addressed by a C++ suite.
debugger
source code navigation tools (now I am using http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1638 plugin and ctags)
compile lib/project/one source file from ide
navigation by files in project
work with source control system
easy acces to file changes history
rename file/variable/method functions
easy access to c++ help
easy change project settings (Makefiles, jam, etc)
fast autocomplette for paths/variables/methods/parameters
smart identation for new scopes (also it will be good thing if developer will have posibility to setup identation rules)
highlighting incorrect by code convenstion identation (tabs instead spaces, spaces after ";", spaces near "(" or ")", etc)
reformating selected block by convenstion
Things I'd like in an IDE that the ones I use don't provide:
When I run or debug my compiled program, I'd like the option of having a dialog pop up which asks me for the command line parameters. It should remember the last 20 or so parameters I used for the project. I do not want to have to edit the project properties for this.
A "Tools" menu that is configurable on a per-project basis
Ability to rejig the keyboard mappings for every possible command.
Ability to produce lists of project configurations in text form
Intelligent floating (not docked) windows for debugger etc. that pop up only when I need them, stay on top and then disappear when no longer needed.
Built-in code metrics analysis so I get a list of the most complex functions in the project and can click on them to jump to the code
Built-in support for Doxygen or similar so I can click in a Doxygen document and go directly to code. Sjould also reverse navigate from code to Doxygen.
No doubt someone will now say Eclipse can do this or that, but it's too slow and bloated for me.
Adding to Neil's answer:
integration with gdb as in emacs. I know of clewn, but I don't like that I have to restart vim to restart the debugger. With clewn, vim is integrated into the debugger, but not the other way around.
Not sure if you are developing on Windows, but if you are I suggest you check out Viemu. It is a pretty good VIM extension for Visual Studio. I really like Visual Studio as an IDE (although I still think VC6 is hard to beat), so a Vim extension for VS was perfect for me. Features that I would prefer worked better in a Vim IDE are:
The Macro Recording is a bit error prone, especially with indentation. I find I can easily and often record macros in Vim while I am editing code (eg. taking an enum defn from a header and cranking out a corresponding switch statement), but found that Viemu is a bit flakey in that deptartment.
The VIM code completion picks up words in the current buffer where Viemu hooks into the VS code completion stuff. This means if I have just created a method name and I want to ctrl ] to auto complete, Vim will pick it up, but Viemu won't.
For me, it's just down to the necessities
nice integration with ctags, so you can do jump to definition
intelligent completion, that also give you the function prototype
easy way to switch between code and headers
interactive debugging with breaakpoints, but maybe
maybe folding
extra bonus points for refactoring tools like rename or extract method
I'd say stay away from defining projects - just treat the entire file branch as part of the "project" and let users have a settings file to override that default
99% of the difference in speed I see between IDE and vim users is code lookup and navigation. You need to be able to grep your source tree for a phrase (or intelligently look for the right symbol using ctags), show all the hits, and switch to that file in like two or three keystrokes.
All the other crap like repository navigation or interactive debugging is nice, but there are other ways to solve those problems. I'd say drop the interactive debugging even. Just focus on what makes IDEs good editors - have a "big picture" view of your project, instead of single file.
In fact, are there any plugins for vim that already achieve this?
Related
I've been reading everywhere about the need to organize your R projects and also to use Rmarkdown.
I see an incoherence I can't solve.
Suppose I set for the following standard organization:
Project
data
raw-data
code
docs
out
reports
and also home of setwd().
Now I want to use Rmarkdown with my main project file called My_project.Rmd
I create it at the root project level, then I get at every knit rendition 2 directories created My_project_cache and My_project_files on to of every .hml file rendered that conflicts with the above structure.
This is very impractical.
I tried setting the options of output to avoid this, per this tip, but it fails on the cache directory, and I did not succeeded in setting Knit options to bypass it. And no-one seems to be bothered by this question making the solution look like a dead-end.
The other solution is to put My_project.Rmd directly in reports/ but it feels a little awkward and on top of that it breaks the above project structure by imposing ../ paths everywhere.
The third solution is to work with Rmd format, only at the end of a project, but this seems a little defeating the purpose of documenting everything neatly in the first place.
There may be a 4th solution using R Notebook feature, but it works until you decide to try to finalize your "final" document , which of course is never really final.
What am I missing here ?
For reference, I'm using RStudio on a Mac.
I ask my question in such a specific way because I am afraid that a more generic form could lead to excessively theoretic discussions of how the things should be done best and in the most appropriate way (like a question about pre and post-process actions in SCons).
WPP incorporation actually requires execution of an additional command (commands) before compilation of a file and only even if the build process finds necessity to compile the file without any regard to WPP.
I would remark that this is easily achieved with few lines of definitions in a shared Visual Studio property page file making this work for multiple files in multiple projects, folders, etc. in an absolutely transparent for developers way.
Thus I am wondering whether this can be done in a similarly simple way with SCons? I do not have any deep knowledge of either SCons or MSBuild frameworks; I work with them for simple practical use so I would truly appreciate a practical and useful advise.
Here's what I'd suggest.
SCons builds command lines from Environment() variables.
For example the compile command line for building shared object for c++ is stored in SHCXXCOM (and the variable for what is displayed to user when the command is run defaults to SHCXXCOM, but can be changed by modifying SHCXXCOMSTR).
Back to the problem at hand.
Assuming you have a limited number of build steps you want to wrap, you can do something like.
env['SHCXXCOM'] = [ 'MPP PRE COMMAND LINE', env['SHCXXCOM'], 'MPP POST COMMAND LINE']
You'll have to figure out which variables you need to do this with, but take a look at the manpage to figure that out.
https://scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-man.html
p.s. I've not tried this, but in theory it should work. Let us know if not.
I can't seem to find the answer, how do you create a new file in Ocaml? Do you edit your file in the terminal? Where does the source code appear?
I think you're asking how to write code in OCaml, i.e., how to create an OCaml source file. (This isn't completely clear. You could be asking how to write OCaml code that creates a file.)
The details of creating OCaml source depend on your development environment, not on the language itself. So there is no one answer.
The general answer is that you can use any tool you like that knows how to create a text file. If you like working from the command line (as I do) you can work in a terminal environment and run some kind of vintage text editor from the last millennium (as I do). If you like a GUI environment, you can run some kind of "programmer's editor" from the current millennium, or really any kind of editor that creates basic utf-8 files (or even ASCII files).
Generally the editor will have to be told where to store the files that you edit. You would probably want to make some kind of folder for the project and make sure you store the text files in there.
I hope this helps! If you have any programmers nearby, they can probably get you started a lot faster than asking on StackOverflow.
I used VIM whole my life but recently I am a bit tired of it because I am lost in buffers, windows, and tabs when working simultaneously with 20 files or so in a big project (with 500k LOC, and hundreds files).
Whenever i do :make, :grep, etc, new buffers are jumping out in the current window.
The same happens for the tags. At some point this starts to be very confusing because I really have to focus where things are in a VIM.
What are a proven and easy ways to control this behavior?
Use :hide to get rid of all windows unless you really need them open.
I'm not sure why tags are creating a new window for you, CTRL+] should re-use the current window.
nnoremap + 4<C-W>+ and nnoremap - 4<C-W>- make it much easier to resize windows, along with the standard <C-W>_ and <C-W>|.
Get a 22" monitor (minimum) and use :vsplit to show files side by side. I find this is even more important than having two smaller monitors.
Use <C-W>L, <C-W>H etc to move windows around. Don't forget :tab sp to open the current file (or a new one) in a new tab.
:map <LEFT> <C-W>h and :map <RIGHT> <C-W>l, etc make it much easier to move between windows. :map <C-LEFT> :tabprev<CR> and :map <C-RIGHT> :tabnext<CR> make it much easier to move between tabs.
And finally, if you need to have 20 files open regularly, this could be a sign that your code is poorly organized. If possible, features should be contained within a single file, then you just need to focus work on one feature at a time.
I tested out Eclim http://eclim.org/ a while ago for a friend. Basically, it lets you run Eclipse in a headless mode while using vim for editing and so on. With the extension, it allows Vim to draw on all the strengths of both worlds, adding for instance Eclipse's project tree to your favourite editor!
Installation was a bit daunting back then, but once I had it up and running, it was really smooth and quite a brilliant solution. Try it out, I'm pretty sure you won't be disappointed. And the installation is probably easier now. :)
Oh, I should also mention that there are several Eclim-setups. You can have headless Eclipse with vim as your primary interface (as I first mentioned), you can have a headed Eclipse and Vim, so that you can easily switch back and forth (in the same project no less), or you can have Vim integrated into Eclipse itself.
Run multiple vims. I use "konsole" on my Linux machine. It allows me to open many tabbed linux terminal sessions in one window. I can double click the tabs to name them, e.g. "models", "views", "controllers", etc. In each of these tabbed linux terminals, I'll have a vim process running that has usually 2 or 3 files open at a time.
Another option is to find and IDE that has Vim mode, so you can still use most of your key commands.
As a longtime vim user, it pains me to say it, but--it might be time for you to graduate to a full-fledged IDE. You can still use vim as your editor in most cases, but the IDE will handle file management and navigation for you, and probably will simplify your make and grep workflows (e.g., structural search beats the pants off of grep). What language are you working on?
Vim-CtrlSpace lets you organize Tabs, Buffers, Sessions (workspaces) + fuzzy search.
It is quite suitable to work on large projects. That's how I actually come up with it.
Before, I used 'jlanzarotta/bufexplorer.git' and 'xolox/vim-session'
You can check the demo on YouTube.
I have a source code of about 500 files in about 10 directories. I need to refactor the directory structure - this includes changing the directory hierarchy or renaming some directories.
I am using svn version control. There are two ways to refactor: one preserving svn history (using svn move command) and the other without preserving. I think refactoring preserving svn history is a lot easier using eclipse CDT and SVN plugin (visual studio does not fit at all for directory restructuring).
But right now since the code is not released, we have the option to not preserve history.
Still there remains the task of changing the include directives of header files wherever they are included. I am thinking of writing a small script using python - receives a map from current filename to new filename, and makes the rename wherever needed (using something like sed). Has anyone done this kind of directory refactoring? Do you know of good related tools?
If you're having to rewrite the #includes to do this, you did it wrong. Change all your #includes to use a very simple directory structure, at mot two levels deep and only using a second level to organize around architecture or OS dependencies (like sys/types.h).
Then change your make files to use -I include paths.
Voila. You'll never have to hack the code again for this, and compiles will blow up instantly if something goes wrong.
As far as the history part, I personally find it easier to make a clean start when doing this sort of thing; archive the old one, make a new repository v2, go from there. The counterargument is when there is a whole lot of history of changes, or lots of open issues against the existing code.
Oh, and you do have good tests, and you're not doing this with a release coming right up, right?
I would preserve the history, even if it takes a small amount of extra time. There's a lot of value in being able to read through commit logs and understand why function X is written in a weird way, or that this really is an off-by-one error because it was written by Oliver, who always gets that wrong.
The argument against preserving the history can be made for the following users:
your code might have embarrassing things, like profanity and fighting among developers
you don't care about the commit history of your code, because it's not going to change or be maintained in the future
I did some directory refactoring like this last year on our code base. If your code is reasonable structured at the beginning, you can do about 75-90% of the work using scripts written in your language of choice (I used Perl). In my case, we were moving from set of files all in one big directory, to a series of nested directories depending on namespaces. So, a file that declared the class protocols::serialization::SerializerBase was located in src/protocols/serialization/SerializerBase. The mapping from the old name to the new name was trivial, so that doing a find and replace on #includes in every source file in the tree was trivial, although it was a big change. There were a couple of weird edge cases that we had to fix by hand, but that seemed a lot better than either having to do everything by hand or having to write our own C++ parser.
Hacking up a shell script to do the svn moves is trivial. In tcsh it's foreach F ( $FILES ) ... end to adjust a set of files. Perl & Python offer better utility.
It really is worth saving the history. Especially when trying to track down some exotic bug. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or some such junk...
As for altering all the files... There was a similar question just the other day over at:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/573430/
c-include-header-path-change-windows-to-linux/573531#573531