The History of Visual Development Environments 181
Esther Schindler writes "There was a time when programs were written in text editors. And when competition between C++ vendors was actually fierce. Step into the time travel machine as Andy Patrizio revisits the evolution and impact of the visual development metaphor. 'Visual development in its earliest stages was limited by what the PC could do. But for the IBM PC in the early 1980s, with its single-tasking operating system and 8- or 16-bit hardware, the previous software development process was text edit, compile, write down the errors, and debug with your eyes.' Where do you start? 'While TurboPascal launched the idea of an integrated development environment, [Jeff] Duntemann credits Microsoft's Visual Basic (VB), launched in 1991, with being the first real IDE.'... And yes, there's plenty more." A comment attached to the story lists two IDEs that preceded VB; can you name others?
VB? (Score:5, Funny)
Making managers that are "handy" think they are programmers cince 1992...
Re:VB? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you value your time here at Slashdot, you will cease sharing yoke with a heathen.
Re: (Score:2)
Delphi is now C++ builder, which IIRC is now also renamed.
Object Pascal was just a different dialect of C++. Not better in any way I could see, just different to be different.
The one thing VB could do back in the day (being an interpreted language). Edit and continue. I still don't know any IDEs that allow it. Compiled languages make it out of the question.
I've seen a few good uses of multiple inheritance. Buy functionality. Inherit it into your object. Just be very careful, use rarely and thoughtful
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing VB could do back in the day (being an interpreted language). Edit and continue. I still don't know any IDEs that allow it. Compiled languages make it out of the question.
Visual Studio had Edit and Continue for C++ for at least a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
When? It never worked that way for me. Edit, and continue running the old code yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's not a dialect of C++. Object Pascal is a dialect of Pascal [wikipedia.org], which was a descendant of ALGOL W [wikipedia.org] which was a variant of ALGOL 60 [wikipedia.org].
C++ traces it's roots to C, which comes from B [wikipedia.org] which was based on BCPL [wikipedia.org] which came from CPL [wikipedia.org] which was inspired from ALGOL 60.
So while you're right in a way, in that both are descendants from ALGOL 60, the languages are otherwise not related.
Re: (Score:2)
They come back together in a weird way.
Every C++ operator had an object pascal equivalent. The syntax was similar enough you could write a translator. Granting the object libraries were different.
IIRC object pascal even had it's own templates.
Re: (Score:2)
In pre .net VB you could edit the source code in the debug window and continue executing the code, including the new changes.
The one good example of multi inheritance I've seen was a object persistence library. Rather then inheriting from persistent object you inherited from object and persistent (persistent required you to overload the streaming operators so the library could store/retrieve the objects). This allowed you to use any type of object with persistent. Persistent did violate a basic rule. It
Quick C by Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Had a block-graphics GUI, mouse support and a visual debugger
Can't remember the date, but certainly pre Windows 3.1
Re: (Score:2)
Early IDEs: QuickC, Turbo C, Zortech C++ (Score:2)
I used Turbo C for a few years starting with version 1.5 in 1988. It was a sweet product, with one-button building and test runs plus an integrated debugger, and it was incredibly fast for the time. The editor was kind of primitive compared to vi, but usable (basic insert/delete/arrow key stuff).
I eventually switched over to Zortech C++ to get extended memory supp
QuickBasic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:QuickBasic (Score:2)
It was also excellent. Fast, intuitive interface, outstanding builtin help.
Re: (Score:2)
It was technically almost as advanced as microware's basic09 from 1979 by then. Well the IDE was flashier obviously, I'm just talking about language features. It really was pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as far as language features go, it was comparable to BBC Basic.
In many ways i was nicer, seeing as it was freed from line numbers, and the need to prefix functions with FN and procedures with PROC. Oh yeah, and it allowed blocked if-then-else. But it was missing thing that BBC basic did have like pointers and dynamic memory allocation.
The IDE was great.
Re: (Score:2)
QB was in fact a DOS-limited version of the PDS environment, which ran on both DOS and OS/2 1.0 and would produce protected mode executables in the later case.
VMS and Atari ST development tools (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LISA assembler on Apple II (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. When I see a line line " in its earliest stages was limited by what the PC could do" I can only conclude that the author is short sighted. The PC didn't even get to the stage of being a viable contender in the development and engineering world until it got to the 486 era. I just can't figure out why some people think the computer industry began with micros.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Turbo Pascal wasn't sophisticated, but on CP/M it was a game changer. I bought a copy in 1984, because the alternative was Pascal/MT. MT was excruciatingly slow (taking something like 9 passes over the file, which was of course being read from a floppy on each pass). Because Turbo was all in one, the whole thing could run out of memory, which took the edit/compile/test process down from minutes to seconds.
Text editors are still around. (Score:5, Insightful)
"There was a time when programs were written in text editors."
Yeah , 5 minutes ago when I finished updating some code.
Plenty of unix C/C++/script/python coders still use vi and emacs. Just because IDEs rule the roost in Windows and Java development, don't assume every coder users or even requires them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Plenty of unix C/C++/script/python coders still use vi and emacs.
OK, I'll bite. Real programmers use emacs.
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah blah butterflies. Yeah, we've seen XKCD.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "cat > /vmunix"
Re:Text editors are still around. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I used to use "cat > a.out" but the problem is that too many terminals aren't fully 8-bit capable. So I got lazy in my old age and use a hex editor instead. I know it's a bit simple minded, but since I can do all hex digits on a numeric keypad with a single hand, I've discovered that I can use my other hand to pet the cat at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never really used an IDE. Occasionally Visual Studio in one job merely because the build system was based in it (using external compilers). I ended up editing and fixing it's project files with an editor because it was faster than using the GUI. I rewrote that to use Make and became a hero for a few months after that. Really, UCSD Pascal was the only IDE I used, since then it's been vi, emacs, and tpu.
The real problem is most IDEs I've seen are stick in a strange single-window-with-subwindows model
Re: (Score:2)
> When I meet someone who's enamored by IDE's it is always someone who's grown up in the Windows era.
Congratulations... you've just met someone who grew up in the Amiga era (which pre-dates the "Windows era" by a couple of years). It's called "Hisoft Devpac Amiga" -- syntax-aware editor, machine language monitor (it was an assembler), and all. Here's a video (not me) of it in use that I found on Youtube (from 1993, but I can assure you I was using it LONG before 1990). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhUE [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I did Amiga programming. Text editors and command line compilers though.
Getting rid of text: Intentional programming (Score:2)
There aren't that many attempts at completely getting rid of the textual representation in programming. One of them is Intentional Programming (http://www.intentsoft.com). See this demo from 2006 for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSnnfUj1XCQ [youtube.com]. I think it's fair to say it didn't really take the world by storm. Unfortunately?
Re:Text editors are still around. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd absolutely hate to attempt to build a database application supposed to run in a windowing environment, with emphasis on UI/user experience, using any of the best text editors.
Re: (Score:2)
Build with a GUI if you like, but save the work as a text file so that it can be edited quickly and easily by anyone. If you are tied to a particular GUI then everyone involved in the project is forced to use that tool. If you move to a new tool then you can quickly convert that text file to a different format, or at least use it as a reference.
Write the GUI using a GUI, that's often fine (though sometimes it is wrong too especially when people rely on WYSIWYG element layout). But the core of the applica
Re:Text editors are still around. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because I'd be wasting time reinventing things that have no business being reinvented. Using common controls such as those in the VCL encourage code re-use. While you are (re)designing a declarative language, I will be implementing more features.
And there's a reason why IDE's tend to be tightly bound to a platform. All of the cross platform solutions turned out to be inferior because they were limited to the lowest common denominator. Applications that aren't so limited work better because they take atvantage of all the features of the environment and fit better within it. This is why Apple limited iOS apps to native apps.
Re: (Score:2)
iOs Apps are not limited to native apps. ...
You can write your apps in any way you want. As long as you bundle the interpreter and libraries together with the App. There are plenty of Lua, SmallTalk, HTML5, Python and other apps in the AppStore, just google around
Re: (Score:2)
Because IDEs are rarely tailored to the target environment. This is only true for the tiny world of Windows/Apple perhaps. Most environments for applications world wide are tiny embedded systems, and most of those are custom. And believe me, most of the IDEs I've seen designed for a particular chip or embedded system are very simplistic, making even Visual Studio look almost adequate.
Re: (Score:3)
Screw YOU! Seriously I was around coding with QuickC, Quick Basic, EMACS, VI (before it became VIM). You know the days when moving the cursor meant using the keyboard not that wussy easy reference called the arrow keys.
I am extremely happy about having code wizards because I remember the days we had to use printf's for debugging as the debugger meant going down to assembly. It was not pretty and it was downright difficult to code, debug, and run. Sure I got hair on my chest, but I would gladly trade it in f
Re: (Score:2)
You know the days when moving the cursor meant using the keyboard not that wussy easy reference called the arrow keys.
To this day I sometimes lapse into C-p/C-n/C-F/C-b (cursor up,down,right,left) when using emacs, just to avoid moving my hand over to the arrow keys. I use C-a/C-e/M-</M-> all the time, too. I do this in both emacs (my 'light, fast' editor of choice for quickly editing text) and WingIDE using emacs keybindings.
Re: (Score:2)
Java? man up and use text editor, javac and ant you wuss
Code wizards (Score:2)
What do code wizards have to do with debugging? I thought they were for coding, and my experience with them has been rather unpleasant.
Some years ago, a Windows/COM expert showed me how to add a method to an interface using a Visual C++ wizard. We went into a labyrinth of dialog boxes, setting properties and meticulously adding each and every parameter and type. At the end, I ran cvs diff to find it had added one line to the program:
virtual HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE GetSensorStatus(BSTR device, ARGOUT BST
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know anyone who just uses vi anymore either. Most use vim"
I think its fair to say that "vi" and "vim" are interchangable names these days and have been for about a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of vim myself. Sure it's customizable but I never do anything in it other than what basic pre-vim vi did.
People say "vi" because they really mean the vi key bindings and work style, not a particular product. Vim is just one of many vi clones.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know anyone who just uses vi anymore either. Most use vim"
I think its fair to say that "vi" and "vim" are interchangable names these days and have been for about a decade.
I use vi, but I don't use vim. Not for longer editing sessions, but when I'm root, or logged into some small embedded system. I also use the vi which comes with Solaris (the one that will refuse to start if your terminal is too wide) because noone has bothered to install a decent editor on those machines.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like a visual studio style ide for linux if I could get one.
I sometimes joke about a perverted hack where you would run Visual Studio inside Wine (modern versions of VS currently don't run) and somehow modify the tool chain settings to produce Linux binaries (MinGW?).
Anyway, how about QT Creator or KDevelop? They work great for non-qt work too.
Re: (Score:2)
Borland ObjectVision, IBM VisualAge (Score:2)
I remember ObjectVision as an interesting example of visual programming by configuring blocks. Unfortunately it was very limited, and one reached the boundaries quite fast. IBM VisualAge is another story. I cannot remember a more complete, truer IDE than this. I used it mainly in Smalltalk and Java, but other versions for C/C++, Basic, and even COBOL existed. But it really shined in Smalltalk, it native environment. VisualAge allowed to put the pieces of a program together graphically, autogenerate code, sw
Microsoft did not create VB... (Score:3)
VB was created by a company named Tripod and later purchased by MS.
Re: (Score:3)
So the Tripods are behind it? No wonder original VB was sucha mess. They thrieved for world domination! Or even destruction!
Re: (Score:2)
...and VB was their ultimate weapon. Too bad it was usurped by Microsoft. Otherwise, VB would have died a long time ago. Instead of viruses killing the creator of VB, VB ended up being the proginator of many viruses.
Hypercard (Score:5, Insightful)
When I think of "visual programming" the first thing I think of is Hypercard ... I was at uni when that came out, so late 80's?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeup, the first two I used were HyperCard on the Macintosh in 1987 or so, and "Interface Builder" on prerelease NeXT machines in 1989.
"Interface Builder" is why NeXT systems were so popular with Wall Street for a long time. It was amazing. And the IDE for iPhone development is a direct descendant of that first version I used, and to this day has a lot in common with it.
(Yes, I really was programming a NeXT in 1989. I was at Carnegie Mellon at the time, where the Mach kernel was developed, so we had lots
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think of Prograph. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
... so the first thing I think of is a DOS program found lurking in the darkest recesses on a Lab machine, basically doodle a flowchart, and it took that and dumped out C, Basic, Fortran or Pascal code (there may have been other languages, I cant remember.) ...
Never heard of that, but I can see where that would be rather useful in teaching a computing-101-type of class ... show the parallels between different languages and why a non-specific charting tool is a useful abstraction. Awesome!
Sorry, but the PC was late (Score:2)
EMACS on the DEC 10s/20s was able to do context sensitive editing, build and debug (DDT invocation) all within the app. This was in the 70s and early 80s.
I used it for C and Macro Assembler all the time and while most people think that EMACS was just an editor, its scripting capabilities made it very, very unique in its abilities to handle integration. The DECUS tapes were full of examples from folks all over the world who did some amazing things with development tools, all before the "open source" and "f
Re: (Score:2)
people think that EMACS was just an editor, its scripting capabilities made it very, very unique in its abilities to handle integration
Wow, so not just a little unique?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, well as the synopsis indicates there were lots of editors around, on the DEC side you had TECO, TV ( a friendlier version of TECO ) on the UNIX side you had TECO and let's not forget the mainframes with SPF (at least my workings with it under MVS/XA).
To this day there are still people who won't let go of EMACS and they consider any platform or O/S that doesn't have a port of it to be primitive. I'm not in that camp, but trust me you never want to cross paths on editor basics with an EMACS biggot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well not to mention that fact that most of the UNIX ports to VMS used the Raw File System I/O ala UNIX and not the RMS mechanisms, so a DEC text editor couldn't open a file written by the DECus vi for example. You had to convert it first to get into )(*@)(# RMS format.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I found that doing C on VMS was a pain. So many options for files that doing a simple open was complicated. Incredibly simple in assembler though since it had all these advanced macros to automatically fill in all the optional parameters. Then when you got the file created it was only readable by programs that knew exactly what file format it was in.
This wasn't just a problem with C or ported Unix programs though. I had plenty of problems just getting one VMS program to use a file created in a diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Well DEC decided with VMS that RMS was the best way to do things. Don't get me wrong but a Raw file was certainly great vs. SEQ-ASC
and having to do the convert. It brought new meaning to the text file scenarios vs. \n and MS-DOS formats with \r\n and then throw in SEQ-ASC. There was a great little utility on the DECUS tapes that would just figure it out and convert it from SEQ-ASC to UNIX or to MS-DOS and back from all the combinations. Now throw in integration with TOPS-10 or TOPS-20 and you could reall
Re: (Score:2)
Well beyond all those Emacs jokes this one is my favorite: EMACS is a nice OS, but it lacks a decent editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny a long time ago. But today an emacs with all the bells and whistles is still smaller than most IDEs with only a fraction of the capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can do refactorings in EMACS? I mean, automated multi file spaning language. sensitive refactorings, ofc.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably you can in the same way you do in any editor, by hand. Or you could write some code to do this, and probably someone already has done it. Or you could use a third party tool to do it, after all there's no reason it all has to be done in one single tool.
In my experience, the language sensitive support in Emacs is superior to anything I've seen. Maybe some tools understand C better than Emacs, or some understand Java better, but I've never seen any that have good understanding of Make plus C plus
Re: (Score:2)
Then work a few years in the Java world and try an "editor" like IDEA IntellyJ.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it work on stuff other than Java? If not, then it's seems limited.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite IDE - AutoCad (Score:2)
Back in the late 80's early 90's my favourite IDE was actually AutoCad plus and external compiler being used to program a Bailey Network 90 Distributed Control System (mentioned deep in Distributed Control Systems [wikipedia.org]).
You drew up the process control drawings in AutoCad and visually connected data signals from processing block to processing block and when finished you pushed the AutoCad drawings through the compiler (which on the Compaq 286 we had took all night for the job I was working on) . This produced th
LabVIEW (Score:2)
I wrote my own "IDE" on MSDOS 3 (Score:2)
Back in the day I used MS C/C++ 5.1 (one of their finer products IMHO). This was classical command line suite with compiler, linker, make and a nice editor (called me I think).
Based on an idea in .EXE magazine I wrote a special make file and a batch script that:
1) Run the special make file to generate a new temp batch script to compile the code (only one file) as needed
2) Ran the new temp batch file
3) Saved the error report if present
4) If the error report was present then parse the errors and source code t
Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
Which makes him a retard. Form designers are not the primary component of IDEs, nor are they necessary to be called an IDE.
RHIDE (Score:2)
Do you still remember RHIDE? It was usually combined with DJGPP (C/C++ build tools for DOS). RHIDE was nifty and easy to use.
What I'd like to try out, and this does sound a bit silly, but some minimalist IDE for the Modern UI. I tried browsing the Windows Store but there wasn't much coding stuff available at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Earlier IDEs (Score:4, Informative)
Without even trying to do any historic digging:
Asymetrix Toolbook shipped "with" Windows well before VB. In fact the company I worked for foolishly assumed it was "part of" Windows. Toolbook, in turn, was not exactly a knockoff of HyperCard, but was certainly a member of the same genre.
LabView for the Macintosh shipped in 1986, and not only still exists but has a very solid niche in some circles. LabView is such a pure visual IDE that there are not visible lines of code as such; it is all wiring diagrams.
Bill Budge's 1983 Pinball Construction Set, for the Apple ][ and Atari, was certainly an IDE, although for a restricted class of applications.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the later incarnations of Visual Studio are considerably less "integrated" than the original Visual Basic was. Visual Studio has the feeling to me of being no more "integrated" than, say, Borland C++ or the (1985) MacPascal. Unlike VB, it just had a fairly crude resource-editor-like "drawing" environment. It feels OK when you're creating things for the first time, but the visual objects do not really "contain" code--they have a very loose and fragile connection to the code associated with them.
How far it's fallen... (Score:2)
WatFor77 IDE for fortran in 1984 (Score:2)
Suntools (Score:2)
What about SmallTalk and UCSD Pascal? (Score:2)
I would say Turbo Pascal and co where by far not the first integrated development environments and also not the first graphical IDEs.
Heck, I guess in the LISP world the development likely was also done with an IDE, may it have been graphical or not.
I can not immagine a Symbolics machine having ny a text editor.
Geez - Brief?! (Score:2)
Not *one* mention of the best programmer's editor, Brief, that was used all over in the late eighties/well into the nineties?
Hmmm, maybe now it'll run under wine....
mark
Just what I used on the Mac in the 1980s... (Score:2)
MPW
ParcPlace (?) Smalltalk
Lightspeed/Think C
Hypercard
I did a project or two on Mac Common LISP, but I don't even remember whether that was an IDE or not. It's been a looooong time.
Even earlier than that, I used some Pascal dev environment on the TRS-80, but I don't think you could call it an IDE. Not much room for integration in 48K.
Borland C: the first real IDE ... (Score:3)
"Turbo C is an Integrated Development Environment [wikipedia.org] and compiler for the C programming language from Borland. First introduced in 1987, it was noted for its integrated development environment, small size, fast compile speed, comprehensive manuals and low price".
The Article Was Very Well-Written and Effective... (Score:3)
...as a link generator.
Welcome to the world of the Twenty-First Century viral marketing campaign.
When the article appeared on the FP of this site, I'll bet that the Mendix folks popped a Dom Perignon bottle.
We've been punk'd.
Borland Builders (Score:2)
There's nothing "Visual" about it (Score:2)
I've always been quite puzzled about the use of "Visual" or "Graphical" for this kind of "mostly text with some rectangles thrown-in for good measure" IDEs. Besides being bit-mapped, there's nothing really graphical about them.
Want something visual? Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apy5csu0DkE [youtube.com]. Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJG7Fy5Few [youtube.com]. Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4a0jcrDgK0 [youtube.com]. Or the amazing stuff on this page: http://www.iquilezles.org/live/index.htm [iquilezles.org]. Now, that's visual ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, some of the early Lisp Machine style interfaces were highly advanced in comparison to anything we have today. But that was roughly the same era as Smalltalk-80 as well, so undoubtedly there was a lot of crosstalk.
Lisp on a Lisp Machine (or variants thereof) was essentially a text-only language sitting within a system and OS designed to support it. You could do Lisp stand alone and import it if you liked. However Smalltalk-80 really was not designed to be used outside of the Smalltalk system. While t
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand your context, but I would say we did pass smalltalk. Sure at the time it was rocket science, but what bothered me then, and still does today is the fact that small talk wants to rewrite mathematical precedence. As an engineer I thought, "ok screw that language". But for the idea of a running VM, with edit, debug, etc, yeah you can say Smalltalk was the basis, or at least got it going on an industrial level.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember reading Alan Kay's starting goals with Smalltalk was to have a language syntax that would fit on a 3x5 index card. Instead wasting brain cells on that abortion known as C++ operator precedence (Java, C#, C aren't much better btw), you have a single rule that works everywhere: left to right. That's it.
Let's tie this back to the Fine Article: Checking in at 1979 (I don't see this in the article), I'd say Smalltalk has a good shot at bei
More about Macros... (Score:2)
Read the Graham quote, and there at the end - "How can you get anything done in them, I think, without macros?" is probably something that people without Lisp experience are not going to grok just because there are other languages that have a thing called 'macros'. And then I look in the link (having not read that article in a while) and find Graham explaining the difference.
It kind of reinforces the point of the portion you quoted, the way you quoted it, leaving out the further explanation of what Lisp macros are. If you already know, you'll get it immediately - if you don't, you might well sit there and say 'But ... C has macros! C++ has macros!' and miss it completely.
Quite true; it was already getting to be a longish post. :-)
For the readers who may not know much about Lisp here are the next few sections: Graham's original essay is worth a read. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html [paulgraham.com]. Quite thought provoking.
Any way, here's the bit on macros:
Many languages have something called a macro. But Lisp macros are unique. And believe it or not, what they do is related to the parentheses. The designers of Lisp didn't put all those parentheses in the language just to be different. To the Blub programmer, Lisp code looks weird. But those parentheses are there for a reason. They are the outward evidence of a fundamental difference between Lisp and other languages.
Lisp code is made out of Lisp data objects. And not in the trivial sense that the source files contain characters, and strings are one of the data types supported by the language. Lisp code, after it's read by the parser, is made of data structures that you can traverse.
If you understand how compilers work, what's really going on is not so much that Lisp has a strange syntax as that Lisp has no syntax. You write programs in the parse trees that get generated within the compiler when other languages are parsed. But these parse trees are fully accessible to your programs. You can write programs that manipulate them. In Lisp, these programs are called macros. They are programs that write programs.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that we say "Lisp has macro" when we should really say "Lisp has meta-programming". And that, C or C++ don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, plenty of languages dismiss operator precedence. Assembler, Lisp. And even if you do have precedence you need to know and learn what it is, I've seen plenty of bugs due to someone misunderstanding precedence tables. I also know some experienced and smart programmers who stick in extra parentheses just to avoid the whole issue.
And the "edit, debug, etc" part of Smalltalk was just one small part of it. People had similar things at the time. What was fundamentally new was the fine grained object orie
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just tell the truth and say that this visual development environment was developed on MIT CADR and then shamelessly copied by Symbolics and LMI?
Re: (Score:2)
There was no graphical component to the development environment. It was no different from any of the other systems of the time in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Integrated compilation and code editing, and integrated debugging.
Come on, have all of you forgotten Forth? You could have integrated *incremental* compilation, code editing, and debugging on the first IBM PCs just fine, including support for multi-tasking, virtual memory, graphics, integrated assembly for optimizing critical code, and whatnot. In fact, people had all this on 8-bit machines before that!
Re: (Score:2)
Borland's early Turbo compilers were amazing (fit on two floppies, and fast). They used a DOS-based windowing system called Turbo Vision. Your app ended up looking like the Turbo IDE, with windows, drop down menus, checkboxes, etc., instead of the Windows 3.1 API. Indeed you could draw color graphics and animate math functions, etc., though that may have been in some kind of full screen mode.
Borland went over to the Windows API soon after all that. It all went to heck for Borland C++ when they dropped the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
an IDE is only beneficial for large projects with complicated build or deployment procedures with more than a couple developers.
Well, there must be other constraints to the projects you experienced. NetBSD [netbsd.org] has a source repository of more than 6 millions LoC, more than 200 developers scattered worldwide, it targets 16 CPU types. And nobody use an IDE when dealing with it.