[mythtv] noob to MythTV development

[James Linder]

On 18/3/17 8:00 pm, mythtv-dev-request at mythtv.org wrote:
> This is all good stuff!  "Good" development is people presenting their info
> and being able to examine it, subjectively, and using what works. (This of
> course, doesn't mean we won't be passionate!!!)
>
> I have not taken any of this as a jab - in fact, a bit of the opposite:  It
> takes time to share what you know, and some of that time is a bit wasted as
> my background (30+ years of S/W development) has covered a lot of ground -
> including Eclipse and Visual Studio.  ( used both, mostly Eclipse because
> my employment is focused on Java, and muscle memory rules my brain these
> days.
>
> So, thanks for sharing and please do not apologize for taking YOUR time!
> That is one thing you can never give back - I appreciate it!
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Roger James<roger at beardandsandals.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 March 2017 6:32:03 am Dave Mansfield<muddysteel at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the extended info - I should've mentioned I've been using
>>> Eclipse for 8+ yrs.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Sorry if I appeared to be teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs ?. I
>> fairly recently switched to Eclipse from CodeBlocks. I was getting fed up
>> with the continued instability of the gdb integration and code indexing.
>>
>> I have only really used Eclipse for external makefile projects like
>> Mythtv. One area I have really struggled with is debugger source code
>> containers. When creating an external makefile project it is very easy to
>> end up with an empty default source code container. Once you get into this
>> state it seems impossible to get out of it. The documentation on source
>> code containers is virtually non existent and you cannot examine the
>> settings of the sub-folders of a good default container to try and
>> replicate them. The only sure way I have found to get a good debugging
>> setup is to ensure executables are already present when the external
>> makefile project wizard is run.
While IDEs may suit some folk, I for one would hate myth to be dependent 
on a 'project' file of some sort and lose the configure/make interface.
With QT (hence myth) sometimes a debugger is *not* the appropriate tool. 
I dont know if you can use the IDEs to debug without the debugger. In 
any event I accept that they are the tool of choice for some folk, but I 
would hate to be in a position where their use was mandatory.
James