A survey of Python IDEs
dalke at acm.org
Fri Aug 17 00:03:43 CEST 2001
Alan Green wrote:
>5. PythonWorks Pro
You left out
8. Wing IDE from http://archaeopteryx.com/
>All of these IDEs have a debugger.
>None support multi-threaded
>debugging :-(, although the VisualPython documentation threatens to.
They also threaten it, at
I also understand that
9. Emacs has a usable debugger.
>Despite these IDE's, it seems that most Python developers use a text
>editor to program Python.
I used an IDE with Turbo C 2.0 and Pascal 5.x days. Then I
moved to unix, which didn't have any IDEs that I could afford.
So I learned to use print statements. I got good at it, so that
I knew just the right place to put in a print statement to get
Now I'm in a rut. There's the time hit to learn how to use an
IDE (and evaluate the different ones). It's been so long since
I used an IDE that I don't even recall why they're useful.
Plus, I would lose my street cred if I started using an IDE :)
>a. Python is the kind of language that doesn't need a lot of tool
There is something to that. I develop my code so I can work
with it in the interactive mode. Isn't that one of the more
advanced features of most IDEs?
>b. The IDEs that are there are fairly primitive compared to VC++ (the
>yardstick against which all other IDEs seem to be measured)
Cf. "Turbo C 2.0", so that can't be it. Actually, I've tried
using VC++ and admit to being overwhelmed by everything. Doesn't
help that I didn't know an OLE control from a bullring cheer.
>c. Python programmers are the kind of people that don't use IDEs.
I wasn't using an IDE with my unix-based C/C++ code either. Or
my Perl code. Or my Tcl. Maybe it's more that Unix programmers
aren't IDE people, and Python had a large unix audience up until
Mark started working on .. COM and IDE support.
dalke at dalkescientific.com
More information about the Python-list