RE: [Caml-list] IDE like PyCharm - Results

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Allan Wegan wrote:
> >> emacs:
> >> Already got two operating systems to use and don't want to learn
> >> another one. I know, you all *love* this beast. But i have used
> >> Windows for a long time before i switched to Gentoo. I just can't
> >> live without a usable GUI anymore.
> >
> > I feel for you.  I've been there when I started my Lisp/Scheme
> > journey. But once I got the hang of it, I never looked back :-)
> 
> Yeah - ya guys see everything after the punch cards as unneded eye candy
> anyway :P
>
> >> $ opam install merlin ocamlbuild ocp-indent
> >> -> installed some stuff
> >> $ apm install nuclide language-ocaml ocaml-indent build
> >> -> "bash: apm: command not found"
> >
> > This, I'm certain, is an OS specific problem as on Ubuntu 14.04, here,
> > it went all fine.  I'd suggest you try Atom installation again since
> > the editor, IMO, seems to be worth it.
> 
> It surely is an OS-specific thing - because it is a build environment
> thing.

It's a build environment thing because you insist on using a package manager which is a build environment!

> People tend to assume that everyone out there will have the same OS
> they have and therefore do not even think about giving more detailed
> instructions.

There were more detailed instructions; you chose to snip the line:

> As soon as you have opam and atom installed it's as simple as:

If bash is telling you that apm isn't found, it probably means you've failed to install atom on your OS. If you're struggling to do that, you could:

a) Actually ask a question about how to do this (possibly, but not necessarily, on a more applicable list), instead of insulting the OP
b) Use a more popular OS, and see if the instructions are easier to find
c) Temporarily virtualise a more popular OS in order to try it out, and then return to installing it to your more niche OS if you're happy with it

<snip rant>

> > I, personally, wouldn't call it build env hell.  Since you're trying
> > to swim in a different direction that the current's (vim & Emacs), you
> > can't expect much material to be found.
> 
> Vim and Emacs are commandline editors - we got 2016 and IDEs for other
> languages evolved to be GUI-driven out there.

Actually, IDEs for other languages evolved to be GUIs more than 20 years ago, having recently had the "pleasure" of reinstalling Microsoft Visual C++ 4. So calling Vim and Emacs users dated may not be a route to getting advice (belligerent maybe...)

> If you want to know how an IDE looks like when it is done "right" - look
> at Microsoft's Visual Studio. They do not often do things right but that
> thing is the greatest IDE i've seen (and with todays CPUs and RAM it even
> became fast *g*).

If you'd like to whip up some funds for a port, I'm sure the community would be grateful. You are a priori assuming that all of us Vim and Emacs users have never seen or used Visual Studio (or Eclipse before). A better tack might be to name a feature of your favourite GUI IDE which you perceive as lacking in our terribly dated "command line" editors (I personally regard gVim as a GUI editor, the clue being in the 'g'). There's a chance it's on a wish-list; there's a chance there's a perfectly reasonable other way...

> Too bad they did their own .Net-based functional
> language instead of adopting OCaml...

Although they did use OCaml as a starting point for that language.


David