Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!todd From: todd@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Environments (was Re: Arity's so-called upgrade) Message-ID: <12102@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Date: 22 Mar 91 22:25:51 GMT References: <11768@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <12066@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <5024@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Sender: news@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 71 In article <5024@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <12066@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>, todd@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes: >> programmers all use clumsy primitive tools to do development? The >> integration of a good development environment with a functioning and >> optimized interpreter or compiler is the key to professional software >> development. >I think there is something of great value to all of us to be extracted >from this discussion, and I think it warrants a new thread. I have >_not_ used Arity/Prolog, and I _have_ used Turbo Prolog. I found the >Turbo environment to be a pain where I sit down, and that's throwing >roses at it. Turbo wanted me to do everything _it's_ way in stupid >little tiny windows. I would *eagerly* have sacrified colour and all >their nasty menus for a really simple interface which just sat there Despite what I said about Turbo Prolog's environment (re: I said it had features I liked), I agree with Richard although I don't think I disliked it as much as he. For me, the non-Prolog nature of Turbo Prolog was the main reason I gave it a thumbs down. But its been years since I actually played with it, so perhaps my memories of its environment is not accurate either. >So there's a very important question. What DO people want in a Prolog >development environment? I would like things like [...] >So what ARE the things that professional programmers expect in a >professional development system that Arity fails to provide, and >who does provide them? What, for goodness' sake, is it that >Turbo does right? My foggy recollection of the two things I liked about Turbo Prolog's environment (I think I last looked it around 1988 or so) were (1) what looked liked a good start on a source debugger and (2) the fact that code in the edit-test-debug-edit cycle always worked in final compiled for if it got through the development cycle (since, if I recall correctly, Turbo Prolog did not really have an interpreter). Some of the things I want in a development environment are (and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things here) in no particular order. o An easy to use but powerful debugger/tracer. Something akin to what Turbo Debugger is to Borland C++ o An integrated editor that is powerful, flexible, and extensible. I am speaking here of something like the Sage Professional Editor or even GNU EMACS. I would want to be able to go from the editor to either the interpreter or compiler very easily for testing and then get back to my editor again very easily. o The editor should also have a good help system that is context sensitive. This is especially important for documentation on vendor-unique extensions (windowing, menuing, etc.). A hypertext type facility like we seen in Quick C, Borland C++, etc. is fine for me. o The compiler (and I do want a compiler as well as an interpreter) should be able to take code developed in an interpreted environment without much code modification (zero code mods would be perfect). o There should be good online (hypertext) as well as hard copy documentation. o There should be either a built-in or third party source code version control facility (I use SCCS out of habit but I know there must be better source code control software out there). I'm sure I forgot a few things (like mentioning a built-in 'make' facility) but those are the items that come to mind just now. -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhunix!todd BITNET: todd@uhunix INTERNET: todd@uhunix.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU