Re: Emacs as a C Programming IDE Configuration?

[David Combs]

In article <87aaevet0y.fsf@lifelogs.com>,
Ted Zlatanov  <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 May 2011 03:42:00 +0200 "Pascal J. Bourguignon" 
><pjb@informatimago.com> wrote: 
>
>PJB> dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>>> In article <icbozrvfyj.fsf@verizon.net>,  <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>> 
>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> More important, a true emacs user has little need for a shell.
>>> 
>>> You gotta be kidding -- no use for M-x shell????
>
>PJB> Almost none.  You can always use M-! <command> RET
>

       (FYI: Myself, I do M-x shell, then an immediate tcsh.)

But with *shell* you at least get to *keep* (up-screen) a record
of what's happened, what results you got from giving your shell
commands.

Pretty nice to be able to whip (way) up-screen to find prior commands,
copy them down to "now", make changes to them, and try again.

For me, beats the heck out of getting a single-cmd-and-result
*Shell Command Output*, then if I want to keep it around, having
to rename-buffer it.

Having all the commands, with their results, in one place
allows easy M-x occur, or just plain "history".


>Let's not forget eshell, the Adventure shell, and zsh.
>

I tried eshell once, never quite got what the advantages
were.  

Adventure shell: never heard of it -- from a bit of
googling it seems that you do shell commands as part
of playing a GAME?  When I'm trying to get something *done*?
Can someone please elaborate a bit?  Thanks.


>Oh, and some consider Tcl/Tk's `wish' a "simple windowing shell" ;)
>
>Ted

So what's wrong with tcsh, with tons of aliases?  Seems pretty
optimum to me!  (But am very willing to be educated on alternatives,
as long as I can understand the true advantages.)


Thanks,

David