Talk:List of integrated development environments

What is the deal with NPOV here? The description of KDevelop as having (or having in future) advanced source code parsers (more advaced compared to other free IDEs) got removed. But what useful is this article if differences like this one are not mentioned? Also, why was the explanation of KDevelop used primarily on Unix/X11, but beeing multi-platform in principle, deleted? This surely is a very neutral characterization, given that there is category fur multi-platform IDEs here. I rectified this latter unwarranted deletion by lifting KDevelop in the multi-platform category now.

I think some of the editorial or descriptive stuff needs to be moved into the IDE page, and this needs to be simply a list with descriptions and links. I also think it could be organized a bit better as I'm not sure that OSS vs. Proprietary is the natural information architecture here. It also gets very confusing with the Java-based ones and the stuff under a "sort of" stallman-compliant license.


 * Agree. Some contents should be moved to the IDE article. And this page should be moved to "List of integrated developement environments". --minghong 10:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Does "free/open source" refer to programs that are either or only those that are both? Because, for example. Microsoft offers no-cost, closed-source versions of Visual Studio called "Express Editions."


 * I agree with this point. I suggest that "free" be neutralized to simply say "open source." Xcode, as another example, is a free IDE. 149.169.20.229 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Turbo C that is not listed and is an IDE Turbo_C

Maybe we should rename the title "Proprietary Windows IDEs" as it lists some IDEs (mainly from Borland) that started in DOS, I propose "Proprietary DOS/Windows IDEs"

"Linkified"
Forgive the multiple edits, but I've checked all the links to external pages to see if there are internal pages about specific IDEs. If there was an internal page, I changed the link to that, as that would be considered optimal, would it not? Will 00:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

quincy
quincy 2005 and quincy 2002, any place here? seems the perfect substitute for crappy borland 4.5 and 5.02 compilers! no ?

This page is a mess
First, as mentioned above, organizing by free/proprietary is the wrong structure. There are at several criteria to order on, but none of them are definitive. I've listed them below in approximate order of importance in organizing the IDEs, with the most relevant criteria listed first:


 * 1) Programming language: Several IDEs support multiple languages.
 * 2) Target environment/OS: Some IDEs target multiple environments.
 * 3) Host environment/OS: Several IDEs run on multiple environments.
 * 4) Free/proprietary: Problem is that there are some proprietary IDEs that are also free, and there are some proprietary IDEs that are not free but have a free version.

I started trying to sort this out and gave up. A list will not suffice. Perhaps multiple lists, each structured by assigning a different priority to the criteria would work, but that would never be properly maintained. I think this list just needs to be deleted and the Comparison of integrated development environments needs to be expanded to include the IDE's listed here. A table is the only hope, and even there is will be a compromise without being able to sort on specific criteria. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

VIM
VIM might be a great text editor, but does it qualify as a multiplatform IDE? Can you debug windows apps with it?

Merging

 * I oppose the article List of C++ compilers and integrated development environments to be merged into this one. The article has a right on existance as it can focus on special for C++ details and uncommon IDEs specific for the field. Is there any good reason for merging? - ΑΜακυχα   Θ  12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is Not Paper. Every major programming language can, in my opinion, have separate articles for the IDEs and compilers. I oppose the merging. -Kevin23 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)