Hi all you there from outer space ...

After reading lots of formulas about high-energy-physics my brain was totally overloaded, but at the same time it produces also some nice ideas. (This must be a nature's trick to avoid disk-full-errors ;) )

What will I'm going to talk about ?

Every coder uses many includes and macros and in most cases all of them are filled up with too much stuff that is not needed in sources. Then modern texteditors have that feature to collect text-blocks in a database which can be inserted into a new text.

What do you think about the following idea:

I think a code-editor which will generate a sourcecode-file based on the project-files and included text-parts from a database could be more efficient than the standard way.

The editor needs a well worked-out project-format. In such a project the editor collects the base-code and the references to the database-stuff. With these informations it can produce the final source and give it to the compiler.

I think well organized this can decrease assembling time. (of course not if you have the latest pentium MXXIIX running at 50 THz and an ultra liquid ide harddrive with fluid pads ... :grin: )

Some of the harder problems of this database are:

- it must be able to distinguish between official includes and those added by the user. Small packages must be exchangable by import- and export-functions.

- it must be able to allow exchanging projects between different users. So a special exchange-format must be available as an export-function with the ability to extract some of the database's stuff

What do you think about this ?

Greetings, CALEB


Posted on 2002-02-15 16:58:51 by Caleb
I was thinking of something similar using XML to contain all the data, and source code. The editor would be pretty complex, IMHO. It is a very good idea.
Posted on 2002-02-15 17:16:30 by bitRAKE
Of course, if the confinement energy of a quark is of the same order as the rest mass energy, you'll never see a single quark. As soon as you break up a bunch of quarks (such as a proton), you make new bunches, never a single quark.
Posted on 2002-02-15 22:24:32 by Ernie
Ah, you've read "A brief history of time" too ;) joking...
Posted on 2002-02-17 06:28:17 by Qweerdy