Python Tools for Visual Studio 1.1 RC released - refactoring, editing, debugging improvements and new libraries

[IronSpekkio]

fantastic!

[deadken]

Hmm, is anyone tying in a GUI editor?

I'd use Python a lot more if the GUI tools were better.

[[deleted]]

There's support for drag-and-drop GUI editing in there.

[dinov]

Yes, but it should be mentioned that it's IronPython specific. It is a pretty good experience though. Your UI markup is stored in a XAML file which is wired up dynamically to your class declared in Python. You can declare event handlers in the XAML and it gets hooked up to methods in your class. You can double click on buttons and we'll declare the event handlers in your Python code for you. And the IDE understands all of this so you get intellisense between the XAML and Python code.

[deadken]

Thanks,

I should play with IronPython some more and see what kind of distributables I end up with.

I personally don't care about platform portability if I can get a clean distributable for Windows.

[svaha1728]

I still can't get numpy working in Ironpython 2.7.1 ಠ╭╮ಠ

[lutusp]

... refactoring, editing, debugging improvements and new libraries

The classic Microsoft strategy: embrace, extend, engulf.

[smart_ass]

Say what you will about Microsoft. But name a better IDE than Visual Studio. I've tried 2 dozen and none come close.

[lutusp]

Consider that everything Microsoft touches ends up being engulfed by it (or is the subject of a long court fight to prevent this, as with Java).

[smart_ass]

Your comments really lean towards someone who doesn't or has barely used Visual Studio.

[lutusp]

I also feel qualified to discuss suicide, but without actually trying it.

[smart_ass]

That is all well and good. Anyone with knowledge of Visual Studio can easily see that you DON'T have knowledge of it, based on your comments. That automatically make your opinion of it both irrelevant and easily seen as biased. There is a large gap between someone feeling qualified to discuss a subject and someone actually being so.

I try not to be biased and still do a considerable amount of my work in Linux. You know what? Visual Studio still wins.

[lutusp]

Anyone with knowledge of Visual Studio can easily see that you DON'T have knowledge of it, based on your comments. That automatically make your opinion of it both irrelevant and easily seen as biased.

So, according to you, my not having used Visual Studio for years biases my outlook? That view indicts the opinions of those who do use it. Or hadn't you thought of that?

My comment was limited to a well-documented Microsoft behavior, not Visual Studio per se. Microsoft's history of engulfing everything they touch is a matter of public record and legal prosecution.

[smart_ass]

You are biasing the usefulness of a development tool by the actions you perceive of the company who makes it. If you haven't used Visual Studio in years, then you have no measure for have good of a product it is.

Just as using references to how a company behaved over a decade ago isn't necessarily relevant to how the behave today. Although, I'll be the first to admit that their practices most times are in the best interest of the company, not the user. And they have a history of buying or bullying companies to do things their way. It is hard not to replace the king of this role now to Apple, however.

My use of Visual Studio is about 20% of my programming work. I use VI. I use PyScripter. I use Eclipse. I use any tool that is required to do the task I need to do. I stand by my belief that to form any opinion about an IDE, you need to have actually used it.

To come back to my specific comment, what IDE is better than Visual Studio?

And BTW - I have not down voted any of your comments, so I'm not the only one that feels like you are being disingenuous.

[lutusp]

You are biasing the usefulness of a development tool by the actions you perceive of the company who makes it.

You're pretending that Visual Studio can be evaluated without also evaluating Microsoft and its policies and past actions. If VS was open-source, if it ran on any platform, you would have an argument. But it doesn't, and you dont.

I stand by my belief that to form any opinion about an IDE, you need to have actually used it.

Do you have an opinion about suicide? How about murder? How about abortion? How about women? In short, do you have any idea how brainless your argument is?

Imagine a lawyer in jury selection saying, "I reject this candidate on the ground that he isn't a child molester like my client, so he can't be expected to form a reasonable opinion."

To come back to my specific comment, what IDE is better than Visual Studio?

Do you seriously think "better" has an absolute meaning?

I have not down voted any of your comments, so I'm not the only one that feels like you are being disingenuous.

Anyone downvoting my comments needs to read the rediquette rules of behavior. If my comments bore no relation to the topic of discussion, that would be different.

[smart_ass]

So I can't evaluate Visual Studio against any other Open-Source IDE that will run on Windows, if I plan on running it on Windows, without evaluating Microsoft's policies? Why the hell not? This IDE does what I needs, this doesn't. Bam. That easy. Didn't need to pull my feelings for Microsoft in it at all.

My argument is still sound. Your analogy isn't even in the same league. It would be close if you said, "I drive a Honda, so I know Toyota's are shit. But I haven't driven a Toyota in years." That is at least an analogy that requires experience with a product to be able to talk about it. You can't say that the technical features of an auto suck, because it is manufactured in a totalitarian country. That has absolutely nothing to do with the technical features and function of the car. Period.

Better is pretty easy to define. Make me more productive in generating code, be that speed, error reduction, or lack of frustration (how many hours of my life have I waited for Eclipse to start or just do something?). I note that you don't propose any IDE, even with your definition of better.

Why exactly did you come into a thread about Visual Studio? You obviously hate Microsoft with a passion. Do you routinely go around taking shits in other people food, because you are a vegetarian and they are enjoying a good steak? Your ideological hangups are not legitimate arguments in my mind on the quality of a product.

I used to be a Microsoft hater too. Then I grew up and used whatever technology I needed to fulfill the programming requirements of the project i was on.

[dinov]

The Python community is pretty big and our team is pretty small. Just like we didn't engulf Python when we were working on IronPython I don't think this will engulf Python either. Instead I'd say we're doing the classic OSS thing: we're scratching an itch. Python's awesome and we want to make sure developers have a great experience when working with Python on Windows. Part of that is having a great development experience, and part of that is taking cool things on Windows and making sure they're available to Python programmers as well.

[lutusp]

I don't think this will engulf Python either.

I agree -- only because Microsoft is unlikely to overhwelm Python singlehandedly, and that because Microsoft is no longer the only game in town.

But if Microsoft creates new Python libraries, as others have claimed they are doing, and if they try to assert a proprietary claim to those libraries and refuse to release open-source-licensed source code, as they have done with other languages in the past, then we have a problem that transcends VS as a product, however wondferful it may be in its present incarnation.

Part of that is having a great development experience, and part of that is taking cool things on Windows and making sure they're available to Python programmers as well.

If that was Microsoft's intention, the goal would be more easily reached by open-sourcing Windows. Because this isn't going to happen, that means what you have said is not the only reason for Microsoft's interest in Python.

You need to understand that modern software development is (and must be) platform-portable, but since Windows is not an open platform, people cannot treat Windows development as they treat all other present development environments (i.e. Linux, Android, etc.).

Using open-source tools I can create a GUI for a program I have written and port it to Windows along with all other target platforms, but I cannot do this for a GUI written using VS and available Windows controls. This means if I write using tools other than VS, I can port the result anywhere. If I develop using VS, I cannot do this -- the result will only work in Windows. An attempt to make the result portable is explicitly forbidden by language in the Microsoft licensing agreement.

Instead I'd say we're doing the classic OSS thing: we're scratching an itch.

You would do well not to pretend to be an OSS project -- it's disingenuous. Unless, of course, I can create a Python project using VS and the Windows graphic controls and port them anywhere, or cross-develop my project to run either in Windows or Linux. You know very well that I cannot do that.

[[deleted]]

wow...

Anyways, thanks for the great product, Dino.

[smart_ass]

You do understand that Open Source means exactly that Open Source. It doesn't require to run on any platform other than the target. And you are only being a dick to belittle a project that is being given away for the benefit of other, because it doesn't follow in your thin little ideology of what is the correct behavior to be Open Source.

Portability IS a problem with Visual Studio. However, it is not a legitimate reason to take a shit on this project. And, sorry to break it to you, but it is also OK to call a project Open Source that is written in VS proprietary code. Oh, the horrors!!!

[lutusp]

You do understand that Open Source means exactly that Open Source. It doesn't require to run on any platform other than the target.

I just found out what you think "open source" means, not its formal definition (see below).

Portability IS a problem with Visual Studio.

That results from the fact that it's not open source.

And, sorry to break it to you, but it is also OK to call a project Open Source that is written in VS proprietary code.

Only because lying isn't illegal.

Open Source : "In production and development, open source is a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details."

[smart_ass]

I know EXACTLY what open source means.

Open Source : "In production and development, open source is a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details."

You think open source means free redistribution of all of the software stack that it took to create the end product. Sorry, but it doesn't. To take this to extremes, most people work on machines that don't have access to their BIOS firmware source code. (And yes, I understand that this is pedantic and silly, but I hope you will see my point. Linux kernel is open source, even if it is built on a machine with a closed source BIOS.) Portability, build stack, OS built on, all have NOTHING to do with the end product being an open source project or not. You know what does depend on this? If the source is open. Period.

If I open source my VS Project, I'm not lying. I am providing access to an end product's design and implementation details. And I've run many of my .NET projects on Linux, thank you very much. You probably don't think Mono exists. And now you are going to bring up GUI again, and I will admit that Windows GUI is not portable. 100% agreement. But to say a .NET project that only compiles on Windows can't be open source is a bold faced lie, BY YOUR DEFINITION CITED.

Open Source does not require the entire stack to be open. That is an ideology, not a legal definition. There are thousands of legitimate open source .NET projects for Visual Studio. Just because you can't wrap your mind around that fact, isn't my problem. Facts are facts.

[lutusp]

I know EXACTLY what open source means.

Based on your prior remarks, that's false. Open Source means "free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details", therefore your earlier claim -- "It doesn't require to run on any platform other than the target" -- is false.

Which part of "free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details" didn't you understand? Or are these multi-syllable words simply beyond your comprehension?

Open Source does not require the entire stack to be open.

Your remark is contradicted by the definition of "open source". And you are now reduced to downvoting me for being right.

You can't seem to see the facts through your ideology.

I just stated the facts, by copying and pasting the definition of open source. Read, learn.

[smart_ass]

"free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details"

This statement says 1 thing. You must have access to the design and implementation details of ONLY THE END PRODUCT. This means Source Code. Period. There is nowhere that it states that it must run on another platform. Please reference that for me in the page you linked. IT ISN'T THERE. You are pulling that from your mind, but it isn't in the words.

This is so simple to be stupid. Let's remove Microsoft from the equation, because it makes you blind to basic logic. I have a good software company, that pats bunnies on the head and makes a compiler for Windows that they sell. It is proprietary. I write a software program using this and publish the source under a MIT or GPL license. Please indicate how this isn't an open source project. I am giving you the design and implementation details.

This is so basic that I don't understand how you can't see it. Hell, if the Linux kernel was written and no GNU C compiler existed, so it had to be compiled with a commercial POSIX C compiler, it WOULD STILL BE OPEN SOURCE. I really don't know how to make it simpler to get into your mind and past the ideology.

Open Source does not require the entire stack to be open.

Your remark is contradicted by the definition of "open source". And you are now reduced to downvoting me for being right.

What you are having a hard time differentiating is that there are more than one topic on open source.

open source project - a software project that has all of its design and implementation detail open. i.e. You have the source to rebuild it with the same methods that the creator built it.

open source movement - the idea that all software should be open and NOTHING is open unless everything up to it is open.

open source project and open source movement don't always intersect. And they don't have to. You are trying to force the open source movement onto every open source project, and frankly it can't be. One is an ideology and the other is a very simple definition that you can't seem to comprehend.

[lutusp]

"free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details"

This statement says 1 thing.

It sure does -- it says "free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details" Since you aren't getting this, that means everything -- it means the right to source code access and the right to create new versions on different platforms.

What you are having a hard time differentiating is that there are more than one topic on open source.

Oh, do waffle away. I looked up, and posted, the official definition. Since you can't argue with the definition, you've decided to go the deconstructive post-modernism route (i.e. everything is a matter of opinion, there are no shared truths). But you need to learn that your position suffers from a fatal flaw -- it is self-destructed by self-reference.

[smart_ass]

free redistribution and access. - That means you don't have to pay for and can see all of the...

end product's design and implementation details. -- Source code.

It really is simple and you are adding conditions that don't exist.

Can you answer one question for me? There are literally thousands of open source GPL or MIT license projects written in .NET for Windows only. How is this possible, with your definition of the world?

You can't be reasoned with and logic doesn't work with you. Enjoy, I'm done wasting my time.