Talk:Integrated development environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'd dispute the neutrality of this article.

It's very telling that anjuta and emacs are the only IDE's featured in photos. While either can be used as an integrated development environment so can almost any scriptable editor.

There should be more focus on the historical (past and present) major players.

On the dominant desktop platform that would be Visual Studio. For the dominant tablet that would be XCode. On Linux, there are many choices.

Not to mention non C/C++ IDE's. It might be nice to talk about the old SmallTalk environments. Especially given the connection to Objective-C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B817:82A0:D454:726E:5AFE:C47E (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

what about Java IDEs?[edit]

I made a few tweaks to the article. Also, I would like to list some Java IDEs. I do nearly all my Windows programming in Java, so I'd like to see some mention of Borland's JBuilder, Sun's Forte, IBM's VisualAge, et al. Ed Poor 13:46, 5 April 2002

Watcher (Talk) (replaced 'text editor' with 'source code editor')[edit]

The editing component in every IDE I know serves as a general purpose editor, for editing not just source code, but also configuration files, XML files, documents, README and LICENSE files, etc. This includes Microsoft Visual *, KDevelop, etc. -- SamRolken

In other words, it's a full text editor not just a source code editor. -- Derek Ross
Isn't every source code editor also a normal text editor? -- Panzi 12:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think a "source code editor" is more advanced than a "text editor." That is, a source code editor is a specific kind of text editor. Of course a source code editor can be used to edit text, since source code is text. But a source code editor has advanced features as opposed to a text editor, such as syntax highlighting and (some have) things like "IntelliSense." IMHO, "source code editor" is more specific than "text editor." :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 14:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
According to that definition Microsoft Word is a "source code editor". After all it has syntax checking, Intellisense, and other advanced features. But then any sufficiently advanced text editor can be configured with syntax highlighting, etc. The term, "source code editor", may be more specific than "text editor" but is the program that it refers to really something fundamentally different ? -- Derek Ross | Talk

IDE == command line?[edit]

I think in modern terms, and IDE is considered something beyond command line tools. The History section seems to compare IDEs to keypunch type programming, and implies that command line tools are a rudimentary form of IDE. While that may be true, technically (depending on your definition of "integrated" and "environment"), I think that in the minds of most programmers, and IDE is something for developing software that is more integrated than a bunch of command line tools. I'd put something to this effect in, but am afraid of it coming off too POV in the classic text editor vs. IDE flamewar (a war in which I favor the text editor side).

I think the I should be emphasized in IDE. While command-line tools may comprise part of one's development environment, they certainly aren't "integrated." I think that discussion should be removed, or modified to emphasize the fact that such a setup isn't integrated. Just MHO. Frecklefoot | Talk 18:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Command-line development tools can be integrated right into the command environment. From the user's point of view, it was difficult to tell where the command-line ended and the development environment began with a menu driven OS like the UCSD p-System or with a completely command-based system like the DTSS. Such a system can be so seamlessly integrated that the command environment is the development environment. What really counts with integration is whether a group of development tools have been designed to work together and just how compatible their files and user interface are. If they have been designed to work so that they appear modeless (ie you don't have to leave "text editor mode" in order to enter "execute mode" or "debug mode" -- and vice-versa) they are definitely integrated. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
OK, well I guess that, historically and theoretically speaking, command line programs and an OS could be considered integrated (or used to created an integrated environment). The point I was making is that if you say "IDE" to a programmer, 9 times out of 10, they will say Visual C/Delphi/Eclipse/Netbeans/etc, and maybe 1 time out of 1000, they will say "make, vi and cc". I'm not saying get rid of the historical section, but it probably needs to be expanded so it doesn't sound like it was written in 1974. I may take a stab at it if I get time (obviously that would make clear what I'm saying). User:Davetron5000
I would have difficulty in thinking of "make, vi and cc" as an integrated environment because they are not modeless. In particular vi has modes within modes. In contrast, DTSS, because of its seamlessness seems closer to the concept of a modern Visual Studio type IDE than the original Turbo Pascal IDE which resembles a p-System menu for starting a Wordstar edit mode, or for compiling or running programs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Is there a real definition of IDE around? Otherwise, I'll have to come down on the side of command-line suit of GNU programming tools as a primitive but commonly used IDE. And the emacs/VIM environments (which are more than just text editors and command-line interfaces) would be a somewhat more sophisticated IDE on top of that. The lack of multiple modes doesn't sound like an essential criteria for IDEs. -- KarlHallowell 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As a traditional Unix programmer, I have to say that neither the article nor this discussion helps me understand the definition of an IDE. If we say "an IDE is what programmers think of when they hear the word", then I guess it's a monolithic, traditional GUI which wraps all the tasks necessary for writing a working program — anything that derives from Turbo Pascal.
I also cannot see what vi's modes has to do with anything, or why noone ever mentions Emacs as an IDE, for example in the List of integrated development environments. JöG 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Emacs is not an IDE, it's a source code editor. So is vi. I know this article is in a sorry state (not MY fault), but an IDE is a GUI that integrates a suite of tools into one combined whole. For example, the environment you write your code in is the same one you use to debug in, which is also the same environment you use to check source code into a SCM, etc. The best thing I can suggest is to use Microsoft Visual Studio for a while to see what an IDE offers (not available on Unix, sorry). — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Late response to the 'Emacs is not an IDE' notion above. Emacs is a GUI that integrates a suite of tools (in elisp and external) into one whole. Many people write code, debug and handle source control within the Emacs environment. What more does it take to make it an IDE, then? (I suspect the answer is simply: if people think of it as an IDE, it is an IDE.) JöG 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The only truly GUI IDE that I've come across is the LEGO Mindstorms programming system which deals with programs as diagrams. Most other IDEs are text editor based. Visual Studio is a menu-driven text-based system even if it is implemented on Windows. Sure it lets you drag and drop form elements to design your user interface but then so did the VB for DOS IDE and that works on an 80 x 25 character screen. Hardly GUI. And the QuickBASIC and original Turbo Pascal IDEs didn't even do that. Yet all of these have their place on the IDE development path that leads to today's Visual Studio, Eclipse, NetBeans, etc. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Your point that an IDE doesn't have to have a GUI is correct. Today's IDE's usually do have GUIs, but historical ones did not. And they didn't need one to be IDEs. I stand corrected.  :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My Edits[edit]

Having just realized I provided no edit notes, I'll put them here. I reworded the History section, maintaining the information there and discussing what the term currently means (per my pervious comment). I also changed the "Tile-based" to "Visual Programming", which the more common term (tile-based makes me think of Ultima III) and slightly reworded the intro paragraph, although I think if it were re-done to communicate what features an IDE provides rather than specific tools, it might eliminate the "text editor" vs. "code editor" debate above. I considered putting in a "IDE vs. text editor Flamewar" bit, but I don't know how interesting that really is.

Looks good. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Python IDEs[edit]

I would like to start python IDE list or comparision, but as long as I'm Eric Python IDE developer it might be threatened as advertisement. What do you think? countryhacker 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Visual Studio[edit]

How in the world can you have an article about IDEs and not include probably the most used and influential, Visual Studio, and the history of, starting with Visual Basic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2006

That's easy. It didn't bring anything new. And it is not influencing anyone. Unlike Smalltalk, which is misisng from the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! that's just open source cult bullshit! BTW smart guy, Smalltalk is a programming language, not an IDE ! With best regards, a junior Software Engineering student ;) (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Different commenter here. The previous dude was right, Visual Studio should have been mentioned. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 major contributions. It is a major player and like it or not, they innovate. KDevelop, MonoDevelop, Eclipse, XCode, and many others have been heavily and visible influenced.
   1. Edit & Continue for statically compiled languages.  
   2. Numerous advancements in intellisense.  Arguably the first of its kind.  Yes I'm aware of smalltalk.
   3. Document Overview scroll bar (now integrated into Sublime Text and many others).  Started as the research project Rock Scroll.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B817:82A0:D454:726E:5AFE:C47E (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 

Multi language IDE[edit]

Added a few lines to give the user an idea of what a multi language IDE could implement. I used the Eclipse IDE as the example. IchBin 04:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Someone should fix the section with said title. Are the arguments for or against Integrated development environment? I wouldn't know because I am not versed on the issue and only found this article looking up information on adobe flash player.REscano 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I first read it as a review of the quarrels between IDE and Unix people, but then the section morphs into a review of the popularity of IDEs on different platforms. More than a title change is needed. JöG 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Visual programming?[edit]

What does this section do here? As far as I can tell, it's orthogonal to the IDE concept, although I assume most programming environments for those are IDEs. I suggest removing the section entirely. JöG 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuous Integration[edit]

I work with a linux IDE environment with C++ (vi editor, gcc, gdb and bash scripts toolchain). Could you put continuous integration as an optional extra in the IDE definition because for large scale software this technology is essential. Indeed continuous integration may be more valuable than version control! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2007

Assembler IDEs[edit]

Assember IDEs exist where the microprocessor is simulated and the program built. For example I used an inhouse HC11 microprocessor IDE which displayed the memory and registers, and programs could be stepped through. I do not know how common they are but they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2007

Move to Integrated Development Environment[edit]

"Integrated Development Environment" is taking me here i.e. "integrated development environment". IDE is a technical terminology and therefore it should be the former instead of latter. Maybe a move should be considered to show the world that geek's know english? :) Hassanfarooqi 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:CAPS reserves that form for proper names (and trademarks, &c.), which category the title of this article does not fall under. Incidentally, technical term; the latter; geeks; English. EdC 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should stay here. IDE does not imply that the proper non-acronym version should all be capitalized. The guidelines are pretty clear on this. This page should stay where it is. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:NetBeansIDE.png[edit]

The image File:NetBeansIDE.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Integrated development environment[edit]

(sorry for posting this here, but I imagine no one is watching the category talk page).

Wouldn't it make sense to also organize this category into subcategories based on which programming language a given IDE is for? For example, have subcategories like Category:Integrated development environments for Python/C++/R/etc.; a page like, for example, Dev-C++ could be in both Category:Open source integrated development environments and Category:Integrated development environments for C++. IDEs that are not specific to any one language could just be in the big category. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

references, accuracy[edit]

The article currently contains the sentence: """However, because an IDE is by its very nature a complicated piece of software, this high productivity only occurs after a lengthy learning process.""" This needs references. Please reference why an IDE *must be* a complicated piece of software, and why the UI must take a long time to learn. Provide convincing evidence that current IDEs are as intuitive and well designed as any future IDE may possibly be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Software Development Environment[edit]

why does "Software Development Environment" redirect here when there's a statement at the top of the article explicitly saying that they're not the same thing? (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:QfixGrape.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:QfixGrape.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:QfixGrape.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong template at the bottom of the page[edit]

The nav template at the bottom of this page Template:Integrated development environments for C and C++ is specifically for C/C++ . A template that includes other languages besides C/C++ is needed. A number of other comments have mentioned this. I would like to fix it if nobody has objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexamies (talkcontribs) 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the navigation template at the bottom of the page from {{Integrated development environments for C and C++}} to the newly created {{Integrated development environments}}, which combines the list for C/C++, Java, and .NET. That was all the IDE templates that I could find. There are other IDE's for more languages that it would be good to add to enhance the template. Alex Amies (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

What happened here? It's too much for describing what an IDE is in general. Galzigler (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This happened: [1] (ip edit). I reverted it since it looks not like an improvement at all and doesn't have any change note at all. --JonnyJD (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Integrated vs. Interactive[edit]

Why does the article start with "integrated or interactive"? The remainder of the article doesn't mention "interactive" at all. Should we drop this term? Are there any arguments in favour of or against the term "interactive"? It looks like this article is about the Integrated and not about the Interactive Development Environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtalkprogrammer (talkcontribs) 23:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I don't think that the "Gosling quotation" adds anything to the History section. The quotation doesn't provide additional information about the history of IDE's. The quotation doesn't even refer to any IDE and is in no way related to the preceding statement about creativity. The quotation should be deleted from the article. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I thought it was awkward and out of the place the first time I saw it. I vote to remove unless some manner of context can be added. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the quotation today. --Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

At location ref #5 (, the link behind ""Use Emacs with Microsoft Visual C++ ... use Emacs as an IDE"" is dead.

Should it be ?

Cnemuodc (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Popular vs Prevalent[edit]

In the section on History, the phrase graphical IDEs prevalent in 2015 has been replaced with graphical IDEs popular as of 2015. I don't think "popular" is the correct word here. Integrated Development Environments are currently dominating the word of software development. If you want to develop for mainstream platforms like Android, iPhone, Windows, OSX and Linux, you're more or less forced to use an IDE at some stage of the development process. Perhaps you could use a text editor and a separate compiler for some time, but when you try to submit your app to a market place or if you want to distribute your code in a way that is easily accessible to other developers, you're almost forced to use an IDE. Therefore, I'd say IDE's are dominant, or prevalent if you want, rather than popular. Whether or not IDE's are popular simply isn't the issue here. --Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)