IDE+hg

[Richard Riley]

Gerhard Häring <gh at ghaering.de> writes:

> Rhodri James wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0000, NiklasRTZ <niklasro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear experts,
>>> Since no py IDE I found has easy hg access. IDEs PIDA and Eric claim
>>> Mercurial support not found i.e. buttons to clone, commit and push to
>>> repositories to define dev env dvcs, editor and deployment all in 1.
>> 
>> I don't really understand this urge to cram everything into a single
>> program, since that inevitably leads to compromises that will
>> compromise

Huh? Cram what? Nothing is crammed into anything. The IDE/Editor is
merely programmed to hook into the external tools

>> just how much of Mercurial's useful and interesting functionality you
>> can get at.  Still, if you really must, Emacs (and presumably vim) seems
>> to be capable of working with most source control systems.
>
> I prefer the commandline tools, too.
>
> FWIW, Eclipse supports Mercurial through
> http://www.vectrace.com/mercurialeclipse/
>
> -- Gerhard

Why would you prefer the command line tools in a shell when the same
tools can be used in a way which makes navigating the output so much
easier? It strikes me as a kind of intransigence. it's a common
misconception that IDEs use their own tools all the time. They
don't. They integrate the very same tools. e.g Why the hell would I drop
to a command line to diff a file with a back version in GIT when I can
do the same in the buffer in emacs with a single hot key? Why would I
pipe the output of compile into a file then open that file when a single
hot key can fire off the SAME compiler and then list the errors in an
emacs buffer and another hot key can take me directly to the source
lines in question? Living in the past has its mements, but really.

e.g I have pylint working live in python buffers. Big time
saver. Similar with C.