🚀 go-pugleaf

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