A survey of Python IDEs

[Andrew Dalke]

Alan Green wrote:
>1. IDLE
>2. IDLEfork
>3. PythonWin
>4. Komodo
>5. PythonWorks Pro
>6. BlackAdder
>7. VisualPython

You left out
8. Wing IDE from http://archaeopteryx.com/

>All of these IDEs have a debugger.
Yep.

>None support multi-threaded
>debugging :-(, although the VisualPython documentation threatens to.

They also threaten it, at
http://archaeopteryx.com/wingide/future

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
the result.

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
>support.

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.

                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com