Groups > comp.lang.c > #91970

Re: Improving productivity

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Improving productivity
Date	2016-08-08 09:22 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<ln1t1zw7qu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	<affac3f5-3804-41e9-9678-9f02ca51b47a@googlegroups.com> <94918357-365a-4c67-9397-5bc2228d9bb6@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I've grown fond of the 'classic' tools and highly 
> recommend them: bash (or whatever your command shell is),
> make (to automate compilation), and your text editor.
> The textbook for this is Kernighan and Pike, /The Unix 
> Programming Environment/. Also get a used copy of the
> Unix manual, volume 1, which is all little essays and
> papers about how C and Unix were initially ported to
> several environments and how the language evolved to 
> cope with these and lots of other cool stuff. These 2
> books should be on your shelf right between K&R and 
> van der Linden.

There are a lot of Unix manuals.  Can you provide a more specific
citation?

> The text editor is the tool that will repay increased 
> familiarity. In the "unix" milieu, you can use the same
> editor for almost any language and the whole operating
> system becomes your "IDE".
>
> If you have a makefile written, then in vi you just type
>
>   :!make<RET>
>
> to build your project. That's light years ahead of opening
> (or suspending to) a shell and typing `gcc ...`.

I rarely invoke commands from within vi (actually vim) like that.
I'd suspend the editor and type "make" from the shell prompt.
Of course you can use whichever approach you're more comfortable
with.

> In emacs it's even shorter: 
>
>   ^x^m          (where ^ indicates the ctrl- key combo)

Hmm, that doesn't work for me.  Does it depend on some mode that
I'm not using?

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

Improving productivity janus <emekamicro@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:46 -0700
  Re: Improving productivity Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-07 18:52 -0700
  Re: Improving productivity Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-08-07 22:59 -0400
  Re: Improving productivity fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 00:49 -0700
    Re: Improving productivity fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 01:32 -0700
  Re: Improving productivity luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:04 -0700
    Re: Improving productivity Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-08 09:24 -0600
    Re: Improving productivity Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-08 09:22 -0700
      Re: Improving productivity Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2016-08-08 18:47 +0000
      Re: Improving productivity luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:23 -0700
        Re: Improving productivity Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:27 +0530
    Re: Improving productivity Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-08 19:59 +0100
      Re: Improving productivity luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 20:16 -0700
  Re: Improving productivity Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-08-10 03:19 +0100
  Re: Improving productivity jgh@mdfs.net - 2016-08-12 13:59 -0700

csiph-web