The answer? No...

Yes, you specifically asked for an answer.

Ducking and weaving, ducking and weaving. Oh and invective and ad homenim too.

All to avoid admitting your original point was flat out wrong and illogical. Still if it comforts to do so, please be my guest and keep on fooling yourself :)

You're obviously an amateur, or someone who works on very small projects.

And you obviously lack a basic understanding of logic. Let's say we accept your absurd premise that one needs an IDE to be productive.

That makes an IDE necessary but not sufficient to be productive. If you put a monkey in front of an IDE, you wouldn't have a productive programmer.

The fact that you seem to think an IDE makes even very bad people productive is a strong indication that you either don't work in programming at all or you only ever work with the bottom 20% so you don't know what a productive programmer actually looks like.

I think the word 'invented' gives too much credit as is.

The fact that he used the term "acoustic coupler" should indicate that he was referring to them having "invented" something which was actually invented in the early 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Jesus Christ I thought you were *JOKING*.

Are you honestly so stupid you think any drooling moron placed in front of an IDE is productive???

I can demonstrate it by pointing to a few of the drooling morons I know who have somehow become employed as programmers, or you know the legions of idiots on stack exchange.

When was the last time you saw more than a tiny fraction of women showing interest or excelling in something like engineering or computer programming?

Out of interest who is the only person to have won two science Nobel prizes in different disciplines?

My university had something like 95% male engineers, 5% female. And the brightest were always guys.

Mine was about 85% guys and the smartest in my year was female. Not only got the top exam mark she was excellent at the practical side too.

Just because they might be rare doesn't mean truly astoundingly bright female scientists and engineers don't exist.

I mentioned this in another thread, but other shows like "The Flash" depicts every single fracking woman as a supersmart, unmatched computer or mechanical engineer, programmer, physics whiz, etc. What universe does this show even take place?

A truly realistic universe where a guy can run at 1000 miles per hour?

Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.

Except that's not what you're doing. You're requiring me to know the answer.

Which you're using as an excuse to evade and be intellectually dishonest.

Go on then. Demonstrate it.

http://stackoverflow.com/

You mean you do potentially mass commits before checking, or even before compiling or running unit tests because problems with compilation and unit tests can - and will - occur when refactoring/renaming of artifacts is done wrong?

Sure, why not? git suppupports quick branching. I can make a branch, do mass commits, do the testing then squash the commits before merging if I like.

Okay, the most powerful super in the setting is one SQUIRREL GIRL!

I don't know the background and I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but on the off chance you're not, "Squirrel girl" is about the least bad-ass name since Pillow Man.

  http://smbc-comics.com/index.p...

No, using an IDE means you are a productive programmer

That is demonstrably false.

Moving past a text editor is a big help.

Only if you consider a text editor and commandline tools to be a throwback to previous decades. They haven't stood still, you know...

Refactoring support matters

Euch: sure it would be nice, but last time I checked the status of C++ refactoring tools, they were far too buggy to be reliable. Things may have changed since then. Also, the refactoring tools tend not to work on half of the languages I use regularly...

Code completion (intellsense, etc) support matters too.

Editors have this now too. You can run it in vim variants. Personally I only like it a bit when I used it. I find I ended up coding to make intellisense happy (top to bottom) rather than than the way I preferred. When I went back to using an editor, I didn't go and enable it.

I find intellisense works nicely for massive and not awfully well designed APIs better than it works for algorithmic coding where you're using much fewer primitives.

Anyway that's besides the point: you can use it in editors too.

Add in things like smart templates, etc.

I don't know what they are, but the first link on google was for a text editor.

I've used IDEs and I've used the unix environment for programming. I know about all those things, but I still prefer text editors. Part of it is that they work on a lot of different systems, where as IDEs tend to be limited in scope (in practice). I've never seen an IDE that has good support for Octave/Matlab, shell, awk, C++, GNUplot at the same time for example.

They also have weird-ass build systems on the whole that do things in a much more complicated way but with no extra utility compared to GNU Make for example.

Integrated debuggers are nice---for certain kinds of code. By chance I happen to often work on the sort of code where printf debugging shines.

I also hate it when other people use IDEs because frankly most people who "know" IDEs don't and do stuff like check in projects with absoloute paths, so they fail to compile anywhere except the original user's machine etc.

You can use an IDE that support multi-file undo, so it doesn't take 2 hours to sort out the mess. i.e. you could actually be productive instead of retarded.

You mean like git?

So far your argument seems to just be to insult what you don't understand.

If you'rebjust going to invent arbitrary barriers, then no, we're done. I thought you were an entertaining person to debate with, but you're no resorting to cheap tactics like moving the goalposts or setting up arbitrary criteria when it looks like you're losing. I though you'd come up with something better. Shame.

So, I guess we're done.

isn't perfect ... no one disputes that.

That's my point.

It's not perfect. Well done! Have a cookie!

But you're still intellectually dishonest. You are insisting that in order to know that the system is broken I must know how to fix it. This is of course the kind of sophistry shennanigans I have come to expect from you: argue every point but the central one in order to obscuate your lack of logic and understanding.