Fred Garvin
Posts: 52
Nickname: fredgarvin
Registered: Jan, 2008
|
|
Re: Version Control is Undo . . . or more
|
Posted: Dec 5, 2008 4:18 PM
|
|
>Calling something 'quaint' is a pretty weak replacement >for an actual argument. What would be a superior format >and why?
I thought I presented the argument in my original post. Essentially, modern development tools have moved way beyond text editors and compilers. A top notch IDE (IDEA) is measured by its ability to improve our development experience via static analysis, code completion, refactoring, navigation, etc. The IDE must produce a persistent parse model of the source to enable these features; the source files just get in the way. Constantly keeping the two models in sync decreases both performance and the practicality of otherwise useful tools. So, I say, why bother with the source? If the IDE could instead work directly on the model and forgo source files altogether, it will be a boon to tool development and, thus, a boon to developers.
I also mentioned that an integrated source control system would benefit from working on the parse model. For instance, changing a member or type name would have real meaning and would affect just one element in the model, not all usages of it. Change tracking would have new meaning. Standards regarding code formatting become meaningless; you can view and edit code your way. Essentially, a parse model based source control system is much more capable than a conventional text based one.
Regarding source files, they can still exist; they're just not the system of record. If you want source files, the IDE will happily generate them for you. If you have existing source files, the IDE will happily compile them. Think import-export.
What's needed in this grand scheme is a standard parse element definition and format so that tools are compatible. For instance, Java could specify a parse element definition and could directly compile this format... and pigs will fly.
|
|