A Bit More on this IDE Issue...

6 comments

A quick follow up on my earlier post about the state of Linux development (itself a follow up of David Goemans' post on "Linux Development, is it ready for mainstream?"), the question must be asked: why isn't there a solid IDE for the Linux platform?

This is not a rhetorical question... I'd really like to know. I've seen my Microsoft programmer friends (yes, I have some) using their Visual Studio and other IDEs, and I've thought "surely Linux can get something like this going."

The usual response to this query has been, "well, there's always Eclipse." And from what I can tell, IBM's development toolset is indeed a worthy contender for a general Linux IDE. But a lot of Linux developers still shun the notion, preferring instead to use their text editors.

The problem does not lie in the feature set of existing IDEs, but rather in the problem that even if you choose one to use, developing your code on it hardly matters if you can't specifically code towards the Linux distribution you use. No IDE--yet--universally does that for all Linux distros.

But, there will be progress made soon. In the next version of the Linux Standard Base, there will be a new software development kit that will now only let you code and compile LSB 4.0-compliant applications, but will also let you code for previous versions of the LSB--without switching to a new SDK.

This cross-LSB SDK means that if there were ever a time for software vendors to think about putting together a cross-distro IDE, it would be now. Access to multiple versions of the LSB in a single SDK means access to a whole lot of Linux distributions, right out of the box.

Maybe this will be the start of something big.

4
Average: 4 (2 votes)
Tagged with ide | text editor | LSB
A Bit More on this IDE
Submitted by Vadim Peretokin on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 20:17.

I'm not a "hard-core developer" and I find Eclipse to be too huge for my needs, while still not doing the little automations I could use. Plus, Java has issues imitating gtk themes so my aesthetically nice setup looks quite poor in eclipse.

So I'm a Geany user here. The scintilla editor component is top-notch, integrated terminal and tabs make it even better.

A Bit More on this IDE
Submitted by Ian Skerrett on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 18:49.

I agree that Eclipse is a worthy contender for a Linux IDE and in fact lots of people use our C/C++ IDE for Linux development. However, I would like to clarify that Eclipse is not owned or controlled by IBM and in fact IBM is just one of many contributors to CDT.

Ian Skerrett
Eclipse Foundation

Re: A Bit More on this IDE
Submitted by Brian Proffitt on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 19:03.

You are absolutely correct, and I regret the sloppy error!

Brian Proffitt
Community Manager
Linux Developer Network

A Bit More on this IDE
Submitted by Daniel Dugger on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 21:46.

I've seen, and played with several different IDE's for Linux. If anything I do on there will run in another distro is a good question. Hopefully the LSB will help pull the community closer together and help people code for more than just one distro.

More Cowbell!

Jack Acid's lil white blog

I do not really think it's about the IDE
Submitted by Robert Fendt on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 00:20.

Eclipse is not the only working IDE for Linux/Unix systems. There's Anjuta, KDevelop and Code::Blocks. However, the problem you are referring to is actually not one of the editor/IDE at all.

After all, LSB is essentially a specification of a certain set and configuration of software libraries. However, no IDE cares about what compiler configuration to use, or about what libraries to link to. If it did, the implications would not only concern LSB, but any library the IDE maker did not think about (i.e., almost every lib in existance). Build configuration is not something I expect to be hard-wired in an IDE: there can be wizards and such, but integrate it too tight and you produce portability problems of a new kind. A clean, well-written application is portable between many different systems, and I would very much prefer to keep it that way rather than hardwiring for one specific platform.

One way of improvement would be to better integrate LSB development in autoconf (or CMake, since I personally have a similar opinion of autoconf as Linus has of CVS), or write LSB project wizards for existing IDEs. But the fact remains that you have to have the SDK installed, and a Qt application is first of all still a Qt application-- be it the LSB version of Qt you link to or not. To make it easy in the IDE to configure your project for LSB linkage would be a good idea, but a specific "LSB IDE" would be far too limited in its scope.

In my opinion, LSB is first of all a possibility for reducing binary distribution headaches. However, I prefer my application to build and run on different Unix variants (think Solaris, BSD etc.) and even non-Unix systems (Windows, MacOS), not "only" Linux. Platform lock-in is always a bad idea, even if the platform is LSB.

Re: I do not really think it's about the IDE
Submitted by khoroshilov on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 22:33.

> To make it easy in the IDE to configure your project for LSB linkage would be a good idea, ...

That is exactly the way the LSB Eclipse plugin [1] is implemented. It brings LSB toolchain into the Eclipse/CDT IDE as an alternative to the standard GCC toolchain. And you can easily switch between the toolchains within a single project.

[1] http://ispras.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/About_LSB_Eclipse_Plugin