Firstly, sorry if this has been suggested and/or discussed in the past. I looked over a few pages of Features topics but I didn't really see anything along these lines. I'm sure you would have plenty of other stuff in the pipeline, so this is ... more of a general thought than a request.
Basically, the idea would be to provide an API that allows a user to load and run a third-party module for the Dream Maker program. I originally thought 'Could be for all the programs in the BYOND family', but you'd probably end up with quite a few third-party modules that either do stuff which isn't nice ... or just interacts weirdly with Worlds. Not to mention, an API for all of it would be a pretty hefty task I imagine.
This section of the Developers Forum is a gold-mine of suggestions, which perhaps only some coders would use. Which kinda leaves you BYOND staff with the tough decision of 'leave out features or bloat Dream Maker'. This way, people can pick and choose the modules they feel they'd find useful.
For example, some people may find an Eclipse styled auto-compile feature useful, or DM Reference tool-tips while they're coding. Others however, may not want to be cradled by Dream Maker, instead favouring an almost text editor sort of interface.
Type-checking just after you type, some form of DMI editing aids, it's all stuff that could be hooked into Dream Maker via an API, in my opinion.
So yeah, please share your thoughts on this!
Thanks,
Stephen001
ID:134463
 Jul 11 2006, 2:57 am (Edited on Jul 11 2006, 4:33 am)
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 6:56 am
|
|
Shlaklava
 |
I say include both ways and a configuration to turn the auto-compile and help features off
|
Good Idea. I love the autocompile feature.
| |
This seems mostly useless. Dream Maker is for programming, and it does it better than almost any IDE I have ever seen. Why do you need more? Why should the developers spend time on something like adding a scripting language to the IDE for a programming language? This just seems completely fruitless. I would rather them make Dream Seeker more customizable(which they are) then Dream Maker.
| |
Danial.Beta wrote:
and it does it better than almost any IDE I have ever seen. Amen. It is an outstanding compiler already; it doesn't really need any major changes as far as I can see. Hiead | |
Chances are it won't get any major changes either since the guy who compiled the compiler has been MIA for some time.
| |
Foomer wrote:
Chances are it won't get any major changes either since the guy who compiled the compiler has been MIA for some time. thats a funny phrase "compiled the compiler" it's a little wierd to say :P But true...Dreammaker is a very good IDE because it carries out the basics while adding a few "high-tech" teachers Though a keyword insertion would be good :) | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Dream Maker is for programming, and it does it better than almost any IDE I have ever seen. Actually, Dream Maker falls behind most IDEs I've used. | |
Well, this is just the point I was trying to raise.
The general idea would be what you add is your choice. They also wouldn't have to create a scripting language for this, if you look at say ... the ZEND API for PHP, you actually code extensions for that in C++ and just conform to the guidelines they lay out, then dynamically load your DLL in the PHP settings, the same way you'd load say ... the MySQL module, which is bundled. I heard that all the BYOND software was made using Delphi, so I'm guessing the Software Engineers they have deal in Pascal, but then Delphi can convert to C++ to provide the API. If Dream Maker has good semantics, then an API (In Theory) shouldn't be too hard. Naturally, if Dream Maker isn't structured in a friendly way ... then this would be stupidly hard. | |
Examples please?
My opinion is that the Dream Maker IDE has the best help system I’ve ever seen in an IDE. It does lack some nice features, such as code highlighting & line numbering. But overall it is very good. My favorite IDE is ASM IDE for 68hc11 and 68hc12 families of embedded microcontrollers. I'd like Dram maker to have a tabbed interface, code highlighting & line numbering much like ASM IDE. | |
How about no? The limits isn't a result of the language, but the data types used. C++ is one of the more powerful, up there next to ASM, IIRC, and you can even use inline ASM.
| |
C/C++ lends itself to those kinds of limits, though. The overwhelming philosophy of the language is to make everything faster, smaller, and more efficient. Frequently this at the cost of flexibility.
| |
Um... it already has syntax highlighting.
Line numbers and a tabbed interface for the windows would be great. Certainly not necessary, but good to have. Optional code folding would be great too, but I'm not expecting that feature any time this century. =) | |
Crispy wrote:
Optional code folding would be great too, but I'm not expecting that feature any time this century. =) that would be sweet *daydreams* | |
Crispy wrote:
Line numbers and a tabbed interface for the windows would be great. Certainly not necessary, but good to have. Optional code folding would be great too, but I'm not expecting that feature any time this century. =) Line numbers and a tabbed interface, along with being able to create/delete folders from within Dream Maker is all I've ever really wanted added to it. I'm not a fan of code folding my self. For some reason, I just cant make my self use it. | |
I don't think I would particularly care for tabs. I like opening my files from the sidebar. Perhaps something to keep the tabs hidden?
Code folding would be nice, but I don't think that it is necessary. It is nice to be able to review two pieces of code side by side. Defentally a feature I would make use of. Line numbers have been at the top of my list for ages. This little thing would make things a lot easier. | |
I do kind of have to agree with this. I mean, if you were really fussed about the limits, you could fashion an integer array class which would operate a bit like Java's BigInteger, thus getting round the limitation.
Not to mention, you'd still be like ... 2/3x faster than Java. (=P That 2/3x just came from one of my Lecturer's personal benchmark tests, not exactly a full factual figure but it'll do) | |