Absolutely not a requirement. There's incontrovertable proof of this. And it's been getting worse and worse. Lately, you see stories coming across/. that you'll think to yourself "Wait a minute, didn't I see that at 'ChatchkiTech.COM' 3 days ago ? Didn't they report that on Yahoo, 2 days ago ? Wasn't it on the 'insert favorite' Nightly News LAST NIGHT ?".
Absolutely positively, troll me if you'd like, but..."Use the force, young skywalker, search your feelings, you know this to be true...I AM...".
"It is good for creating SWING apps and connecting them to Oracle (shocker, considering it is made by Oracle). I did prefer Visual Cafe for SWING, but JDeveloper works fine."
Maybe JDeveloper 10 has made strides...I found JDeveloper 9 very cumbersome for creating UI's. Just the same, my comparison against VS.NET was just that, a comparison. It didn't speak otaku-type favorable of VS.NET, nor was it critical of Eclipse. I couldn't care less about load times myself, personally I care more about how stable it is while it's running. And frankly, Eclipse hasn't blipped for me.
So, enjoy what you use now. Just be glad we're not in the olden days of having to tweak.DLG files and running RC.exe before building your program. I still remember the days even before that ( Yes, I've been working on GUI-enabled OS's that long ).
I don't quite know where you're getting the "mechanic saying that they don't like a wrench because it looks ugly". The analogies don't match. However, if the analogy had been worded like this "mechanic....because it's hard to hold steady, slips constantly because it doesn't really FIT right, or conversely isn't flexible enough ( in circumstances where it needs to be )", THEN you might've actually understood what I was trying say. So maybe you feel comfortable within what JDeveloper provides, but frankly of the Java IDE's that are out there, Eclipse ( when equipped with either the Visual Editor, Jigloo, or WindowsBuilderPro plugins ) is an absolute joy to work in.
One of the guys from work had to do a UI-based project for one of his grad classes, and the teacher had specified JBuilder to create the project. JBuilder X ( which JDeveloper is based on ). Now this guy was admittedly new to Java, but has worked under.NET for several years, and is "not a newbie". It took me 5 minutes, 5 to get him up and running within Eclipse.....he hasn't looked back since.
If you feel happy with JDeveloper, good for you. If someone has some non-nonsensical criticism about it, don't whine. I know Eclipse isn't the be-all, end-all, at least not yet. But, it is by far a step in the right direction.
Which is specifically why Eclipse came up with SWT. SWT may not be the be all end all, but it IS a step in the right direction. And frankly compared to how.NET is a layer on top of Win32, well folks...SWT is no different. The same goes for GTK. Just like Mono sits on top of GTK+, well..that's what SWT does.
There are some relatively minor trade-offs, but name me any environments that have none, and we'll have exposed you as a liar.
uh huh...and the $50 express editions are extremely limited ( about a 1/3 of the wizards of the next higher up edition ). The professional edition isn't that much better. Sure, more wizards, more tools, but when you get into the Enterprise Architect arena...oh yeah...open up that wallet baby...that's it..wider.....no..wider still....nope....just...one..more...0 to before the decimal.
Do a search for the pricing of Visual Studio Team System....EVERYBODY...EVERYONE....even MVP's who've been on the take for years, are complaining. They're trying to do to their tools business what they did to their office business. That's why you'll still see folks using Visual Studio 6 and VS.NET 2003 for years to come. Prices just aren't commensurate with what you get anymore. period.
Dude.....what are you nuts ??? I've tried WinCVS, TortoiseCVS ( definitely better than WinCVS, once you have your paths/configuration set up right ), and yes...GASP the command line CVS..and I can unabashedly tell you that Eclipse's CVS support is WAY better...
Right-Click->Team->Synchronize
Is that too hard to do ? Dude...the thing even has a merge view...get in touch with the program before you bitch and moan.
Geeze if folks like this are what colleges and universities are sending out into the industry, NO WONDER salaries are dropping !
Excuse me ? What is that ? An attempt at an insult or something ? "You must be a UI guy ?" You wish, buddy, you wish.
JDeveloper is a step in the right direction, but it still, if you're focus is on ANYTHING other than creating middle-ware or EJB's, sucks rocks.
Eclipse's achilles heel is having a DataPresentation automation plugin. Those that there are, are WAY too expensive for mere mortals. However, just about anything else, I've found Eclipse is as good or better than any of the other Java IDE's.
As for VS.NET, there's always ReSharper ( from our friends who bring us IntelliJ ), or SharpFactory. I prefer ReSharper ( hint: less expensive, same features as the more expensive one ). That being said, with VS.NET 2005, the point will be moot because at least for C#, Refactoring will be built into the IDE.
VS.NET does load faster than Eclipse when bringing up a "comparable" solution ( for you M$ heads ) or workspace ( for Eclipsers ). I think that may be to Eclipse's "everything is a plugin but the workbench" OSGi approach. However, that being said, I think that that also makes Eclipse a whole lot easier to extend and repackage. Think about that when looking at either WebSphere Application Developer 5 or the new Rational AD workbench.
Then you didn't look deep enough. Take a look at either of these two:
www.cloudgarden.com ( Jigloo...$75 ! ) www.instantiations.com ( WindowsBuilderPro $299, with less expensive versions for just SWT or just SWING at $199 each ).
I am NOT a representative of either company, however, I am a developer who's developed an Eclipse-workbench based RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) application using SWT, and I can tell you first hand. It is A LOT easier to develop a Java UI heavy application under Eclipse with EITHER of these plugins, versus NetBean, IntelliJ, OR JBuilder ( all of which I either have or have used in the past )...
I suggest you take a deeper look. You won't go back to JBuilder. I haven't.
creating GUI application in JBuilder has become progressively harder and harder ( even NetBeans was easier to use ). The only two plugin products I would see necessity of are WindowsBuilderPro ( for SWT/Swing development ), Jigloo ( if you're looking for a less expensive alternative to GUI building ), and MyEclipse for Web/J2EE development.
The only thing is that a Web UI server side code designer ( ala WebMatrix, or VS.NET with ASP.NET ) is still kind of lacking. There is a one ultra-thin client solution, but the company who makes it has chosen to price their product into the stratosphere, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone trying to start up development on a reasonable budget.
They've been doing quite well. The #1 GUI Designer for Eclipse-based applications is $299 and I and another fellow recently used it ( it was the only extra plugin we used ) to produce an SWT-based Rich GUI application. We used eclipse to create a middle-ware layer to our backend systems, and frankly.
That's because as an industry, as long as the professional organizations like ACM and IEEE remain "optional" and not required, the industry will flow from malaise-ish fad to malaise-ish fad over and over again. XP, Agile, Scrumm, Patterns, Anti-Patterns.....JHC ! C'mon people.
I've been in the industry for over 20 years now. I started as an intern....counting fish for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Building up a database of fish catches, and preparing migration plots. New grads today come out of school, and they think because M$ gave them VS.NET Enterprise ARCHITECT for $99, that they suddenly come equipped with the "armaments for battle" necessary to develop "the next great thing". Ok, if you are...then do it. Do it on your own. Because any company you come into, was there before you got there, had to fend for itself against it's competitors without you. And for as "stupid and out of their minds" the other engineers and managers might be. They still got the job done.
Personally, too many CS grads come out of college thinking they hold "the keys to kingdom". Guess what, the line forms at the door.
I agree that things have to be done to "turn the tide", as now the industry has to deal with outsourcing overseas ( and those clowns with the converted cruise ship 3 miles off of SoCAL trying to convince folks that that's a viable "off shore" outsourcing alternative ), and the "commoditizing" of software itself. However, I think it has to start with the "Professionalization" of the industry.
And of course, ( and may the gods of software have mercy on me for the heresy I'm about to commit ) GCC is the be-all end-all we should compare everything to ? C'mon....seriously. Wasn't GCC CREATED in part as an ALTERNATIVE to the other ( for various reasons ).
Yeah, and NeXT didn't exactly THRUST ObjC into the forefront of PC-based ( or any other SYSTEM based software ) development. As I recall, just before NeXT got sold to Apple, there was a release ( although I'm not entirely certain it was a commercial level release ) of NeXT for X86-based CPU's. Did Apple ever push that ?
Look, stop being so defensive about it. I'm not going to sit here and say that C++ is the be-all end-all of software development languages. But there a WHOLE lot more developers who program in C++ than in ObJC. Why is that again ? Given it's been a pre-processor source language for GCC for that long, the question still remains....why do you think it hasn't ( or didn't ) reach "critical mass" ? You're not actually going to play the "C++ hype" card are you ?
C'mon. C++ may not necessarily be "friendly" by modern standards, but at least C++OX is still being managed as a language with a clear standard. Who again manages the ObjC standard again ?
I most especially like the part about how in OS X, Objective-C++ mysteriously disappeared from the NeXT libraries.
C'mon...ObjC has it's uses, but could Apple have made NeXT ( OS X ) more accessible to C++ developers, and not anchor themselves so tightly to Smalltalk-ish syntax ( Oh, I just know some SmallTalk Guru will come down on me about that statement ).
The point is that while C++ continues to grow and evolve...ObjC has for the most part, not done so.
You're absolutely right. That was the only thing I hated about writing software for the Amiga. Having to create ports for Intuition ( or just about any other API-like layer within AmigaOS ) just to get event notifications.
Of COURSE, there are lots of other HLL's which are very well suited to the tast of system level integration interfaces, and those you mentioned are quite valid. If you look the "Wirth" languages ( The Heirs of Pascal ), Modula, and Oberon ; they were to varying degrees the basis for designing complete system software. I give a special mention to Oberon because of it's "unnamed" descendents. Perhaps you might've heard of some of them.....Java....C#...either of those sound familiar ?
"none will be the efficient system programming language that objc is".
For "system-level" programming, it perhaps is stronger or perhaps more "flavorful" than straight c is. BUT......we're not just talking about "system-level" programming here are we ? No.
While C++ can be used for system level programming, it can be ( and has been ) used highly successfully for application level development. OBJC is NOT application level developer friendly. Folks can try to put a spin on it saying it's just us not "getting it". Oh please, spare us. You think it's no small reason why there isn't an objective-c compiler ( other than the free "Portable Object Compiler" available on "thefreecountry.com" ) for any other OS other than OS X ? ( Yes I know there's GnuStep for Windows, Linux, etc. )
Do you think Objective-C didn't make inroads into the more general consciousness of C-like language developers minds because of some conspiracy ? Seriously, back when Objective-C was coming into being, many of us knew of it, some of us explored into using it, but frankly it just didn't provide that much MORE than other alternatives out there, to make it the "choose instead of" choice. It also didn't help that for the most part, it didn't get a commercial push by any non-Apple company.
With the emergence of the IPod and "Switchers" I suspect that more than a few developers will be acquainting ( or RE-Acquainting ) themselves with Objective-C. Hopefully that will do something to boost it's acceptance and mindshare ( and eventually marketshare ) with developers, but that remains to be seen.
Simula ? Simula bolted onto C ?....Dude..you gotta stop taking some of those 'scribed drugs you're talking about. But Simula ? GMAB.
However, I will agree that Java is C++ on serious downers ( Yeah, that was a jab at you C# guys too ).
I also agree that C isn't exactly a great choice to build an OO-based system upon. But, C is a wonderful system to build the underpinnings of an OS, upon which OO infrastructures can be laid upon, to create an application framework. Oh my, I just described Linux, well lookie there.
Objective-C doesn't necessarily have to be done away with, so much as it needs to be plastered over with a more "sentient" application framework layer. Apples Java is woefully inadequate performance-wise ( and it shows ), but Mono seems to be "looking up" in that respect.
When you add it all up, what OS X needs is more straight-forward "blanket" API layer that doesn't necessarily rely on "Messages". Many of those structures ( ala SmallTalk ) were designed in the long ago ( and hey, I've been around for a long time ), and while those constructs may have been useful for accomplishing things so as to not have to deal with even "dirtier" details of the underlying system, today it's just so much baggage that a developer would have to carry around with them. I taught myself Objective-C out of necessity, but would I EVER truly use it out of desire ? Absolutely, unequivocably, NO F'ING way. I don't know how Hillegass ( Author of "Cocoa Programming for MAC OS X" ) can make statements like "Objective-C is a simple and elegant extension to C". Objective-C may "look" simple in it's visual represenations of method:
NetBeans.....JBuilder...>WebSphere AD ( can you smell the "eclipse" underneath )....oh...and yes...VS.NET. Just about every IDE out there is WAY top heavy....
Please take your cynical a$$ out of the discussion, you unkempt, command-line hugging ( Oh, that's right, you said your are an EMACS head....nevermind, that explains it, go on about your business ).
This is what it SHOULD'VE looked like...sorry about that...
------- Plain Ol' Text ------------------
Think....OSGi. Look it up. At the core of Eclipse is the OSGi framework ( now running in your favorite mid to upper range BMW's navigation system, among other things ). The OSGi framework is nice, but GOD is it big ! As the co-developer of a commercial product built around Eclipse and OSGi ( sorry...confidentiality agreements are a biatch, aren't they ? ), I can testify that as nice as it is to have a "plug-in infrastructure around you", the "Extension points" mechanism sucks wet wind. It's entirely too textually driven. It's good to have the ability to define extension points, etc., but to have to "fill in the blanks" manually sucks.
I can also agree with folks' comments about the weird behaviors for:
1. Code Completion
2. Code markup ( i.e. live parsing for programmatical errors ).
3. Switching "Perspectives" just to look at something simple, is a royal PITA.
4. The concept of RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) applications still have a ways to go before being completely baked. 8Mb for a "Hello World" RCP application ? GMAB !
That being said, Eclipse has some very nice features. I love their refactoring support, I like their reference finder, I even like that I can drag and drop items from an explorer window right into whatever package you're working on.
Up until now my BIGGEST complaint is the lack of a VISUAL designer. The default designer offered by the Eclipse foundation is still only partially cooked ( Geeze, even the WebSphere 5.1 designer was in better shape ). With SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro things got kicked up a notch ( but $299 for a designer that's still for the most part under development ? C'mon, get serious. ). There's Jigloo, which is less expensive ( $75 ), but it's far from having the same functionality as SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro.
The thing that irks me the most about Eclipse itself, is that it's basically a whole lot of scaffolding. You want to do J2EE, JSP or Struts....go buy Nitrox or the MyEclipse set of plugins ( sure MyEclipse is $29.99, but it's yet again, a little green behind the gills ). You want to do UML, you can use EMF ( and take serious amounts of sedatives ) or you can use OMondo ( or any of the others ), and take your chances. There's even plugins from rival Java IDE provider Borland ( Together Edition for Eclipse...gotta love those folks who still haven't figured out that before you can collaborate, you have to be able to CREATE ).
All in all, Eclipse is a nice alternative to the overly expensive IDE's out there ( C'mon, does JBuilder REALLY have to cost over a $1000 ? Get real ? WebSphere Application Developer.....$2K+Plus ? Seriously ? )...But the problem is, that at it's core, it's still pretty barren. It's as I said before, the scaffolding for you to start hanging up the rest of the scene. And when you start adding up what you have to buy here, and there. You eventually get this feeling that you've been nickled and dimed to death. Sure, some of the plugins that are out there are nice, and they do serve their purpose for the most part, but c'mon !
- Honest opinion from someone's who actually delivered software ( and continues to ) using Eclipse. -
Think....OSGi. Look it up. At the core of Eclipse is the OSGi framework ( now running in your favorite mid to upper range BMW's navigation system, among other things ). The OSGi framework is nice, but GOD is it big ! As the co-developer of a commercial product built around Eclipse and OSGi ( sorry...confidentiality agreements are a biatch, aren't they ? ), I can testify that as nice as it is to have a "plug-in infrastructure around you", the "Extension points" mechanism sucks wet wind. It's entirely too textually driven. It's good to have the ability to define extension points, etc., but to have to "fill in the blanks" manually sucks.
I can also agree with folks' comments about the weird behaviors for:
1. Code Completion
2. Code markup ( i.e. live parsing for programmatical errors ).
3. Switching "Perspectives" just to look at something simple, is a royal PITA.
4. The concept of RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) applications still have a ways to go before being completely baked. 8Mb for a "Hello World" RCP application ? GMAB !
That being said, Eclipse has some very nice features. I love their refactoring support, I like their reference finder, I even like that I can drag and drop items from an explorer window right into whatever package you're working on.
Up until now my BIGGEST complaint is the lack of a VISUAL designer. The default designer offered by the Eclipse foundation is still only partially cooked ( Geeze, even the WebSphere 5.1 designer was in better shape ). With SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro things got kicked up a notch ( but $299 for a designer that's still for the most part under development ? C'mon, get serious. ). There's Jigloo, which is less expensive ( $75 ), but it's far from having the same functionality as SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro.
The thing that irks me the most about Eclipse itself, is that it's basically a whole lot of scaffolding. You want to do J2EE, JSP or Struts....go buy Nitrox or the MyEclipse set of plugins ( sure MyEclipse is $29.99, but it's yet again, a little green behind the gills ). You want to do UML, you can use EMF ( and take serious amounts of sedatives ) or you can use OMondo ( or any of the others ), and take your chances. There's even plugins from rival Java IDE provider Borland ( Together Edition for Eclipse...gotta love those folks who still haven't figured out that before you can collaborate, you have to be able to CREATE ).
All in all, Eclipse is a nice alternative to the overly expensive IDE's out there ( C'mon, does JBuilder REALLY have to cost over a $1000 ? Get real ? WebSphere Application Developer.....$2K+Plus ? Seriously ? )...But the problem is, that at it's core, it's still pretty barren. It's as I said before, the scaffolding for you to start hanging up the rest of the scene. And when you start adding up what you have to buy here, and there. You eventually get this feeling that you've been nickled and dimed to death. Sure, some of the plugins that are out there are nice, and they do serve their purpose for the most part, but c'mon !
- Honest opinion from someone's who actually delivered software ( and continues to ) using Eclipse. -
Oh...and for the guy who quipped about having to have 1Gb of RAM....Rock on brothah...he's on the money. I had 512Mb when I started on the project, it was totally unusable with that little ram, 1Gb just about made it useful.
And from talking to my Mgr friend at EB....
SCEA actually sent out an email to all EB district managers stating UNEQUIVOCABLY that it would not accept as "defective returns" units that had dead pixels.
The fact that Sony tries to slight this off when just a few months ago Nintendo came out publicly saying that they would REPLACE any DS's that had screens with blown pixels, is such a disappointment.
I smell CLASS-ACTION ( anyone know a good class action lawyer ? ).
Before any of the fanboys descend on me.....I have both. I like the DS alot, but I'm still waiting for the games ( the Metroid Prime teaser level is getting old now ). The PSP has an incredible screen ( except for the REALLY noticeable dead spots ). I have to agree with folks that Sony needs to produce UMD-R's. But more importantly, it needs to own up to the dead pixel issues.
No excuses.....
That's not necessarily the answer either. Because in a big city like Miami, programmer salaries are the worst I've ever seen them. Sure you can go "boo-hoo on you" to me, but the fact is that being in the industry for about 20 years, and being able to demonstrate proficiency in.NET && Java && MFC && etc.etc. just to meet a mocked up Job Req ( because HR Depts. LOVE buzzwords ) isn't any help. When you get down to discussing $$$ amounts with any recruiter or HR dept, you will invariably get amounts that are 15-20% LOWER than they were prior to 9/11.
And I don't mean in IT overall, and I don't mean for doing work at a "trumped up".Bomb company either. I mean as a Team Lead ( where you best know your shit ), or even one of those ( All of your American Programmers need to "become" )Architects positions.
It doesn't matter that IT ( Geez, I wish/. would just for ONCE f$king present research for software engineers as well as IT workers, instead of glomming both fields together ) salaries "MIGHT" grow 0.5%, when the salaries are already depressed considerably more to begin with.
I spoke with a recruiter the other day, and despite being fawned over because of my background, the bottom line is that it came down to $$$. Her "defense" was that "there are still lots of people out there willing to work for less". My answer: "And most of those people are the ones who chased after the.Bombs of the world".
>You do realize there is difference between "could >do" and "could do well", don't you?
Yes, and in most cases, it's "almost, but not quite", not, "just as good". Of course, you're presuming that the companies here actually tried to find someone who "could do well"....yeah, right, and if you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy.
Screw DUPE. I was the first to report it to/., the first night after MacWorld had started.....do YOU think that putz of a Moderator ( Timothy ) bothered to post it ? Hell no.
Back then it was backed with pictures of something called the "iHome", which looks a little similar to the mini...almost the same form factor, but with slightly different labelling.....oh well..guess us non-subscribers aren't good enough to post stories from.
Yeah, and a little booklet from Robert Half is one of the tools that our company president ( and the Dir. of Engineering ) tried to used to justify why raises after a three year moratorium were so low. According to Robert Half, salaries for a Sr. Software Engineer are valued lower toward than they have for 10 years. Yes, you heard right. Salaries have gone DOWN since 1995 ( and that....was BEFORE the DOTBOMB bubble ).
Tech turn around......show me the money. Then we'll talk tech turn around.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely not a requirement. There's incontrovertable proof of this. And it's been getting worse and worse. Lately, you see stories coming across /. that you'll think to yourself "Wait a minute, didn't I see that at 'ChatchkiTech.COM' 3 days ago ? Didn't they report that on Yahoo, 2 days ago ? Wasn't it on the 'insert favorite' Nightly News LAST NIGHT ?".
Absolutely positively, troll me if you'd like, but..."Use the force, young skywalker, search your feelings, you know this to be true...I AM...".
"It is good for creating SWING apps and connecting them to Oracle (shocker, considering it is made by Oracle). I did prefer Visual Cafe for SWING, but JDeveloper works fine."
.DLG files and running RC.exe before building your program. I still remember the days even before that ( Yes, I've been working on GUI-enabled OS's that long ).
.NET for several years, and is "not a newbie". It took me 5 minutes, 5 to get him up and running within Eclipse.....he hasn't looked back since.
Maybe JDeveloper 10 has made strides...I found JDeveloper 9 very cumbersome for creating UI's. Just the same, my comparison against VS.NET was just that, a comparison. It didn't speak otaku-type favorable of VS.NET, nor was it critical of Eclipse. I couldn't care less about load times myself, personally I care more about how stable it is while it's running. And frankly, Eclipse hasn't blipped for me.
So, enjoy what you use now. Just be glad we're not in the olden days of having to tweak
I don't quite know where you're getting the "mechanic saying that they don't like a wrench because it looks ugly". The analogies don't match.
However, if the analogy had been worded like this "mechanic....because it's hard to hold steady, slips constantly because it doesn't really FIT right, or conversely isn't flexible enough ( in circumstances where it needs to be )", THEN you might've actually understood what I was trying say. So maybe you feel comfortable within what JDeveloper provides, but frankly of the Java IDE's that are out there, Eclipse ( when equipped with either the Visual Editor, Jigloo, or WindowsBuilderPro plugins ) is an absolute joy to work in.
One of the guys from work had to do a UI-based project for one of his grad classes, and the teacher had specified JBuilder to create the project. JBuilder X ( which JDeveloper is based on ). Now this guy was admittedly new to Java, but has worked under
If you feel happy with JDeveloper, good for you.
If someone has some non-nonsensical criticism about it, don't whine. I know Eclipse isn't the be-all, end-all, at least not yet. But, it is by far a step in the right direction.
Which version ??? 6 ? I'll take it.
Which is specifically why Eclipse came up with SWT. SWT may not be the be all end all, but it IS a step in the right direction. And frankly compared to how .NET is a layer on top of Win32, well folks...SWT is no different. The same goes for GTK. Just like Mono sits on top of GTK+, well..that's what SWT does.
There are some relatively minor trade-offs, but name me any environments that have none, and we'll have exposed you as a liar.
uh huh...and the $50 express editions are extremely limited ( about a 1/3 of the wizards of the next higher up edition ). The professional edition isn't that much better. Sure, more wizards, more tools, but when you get into the Enterprise Architect arena...oh yeah...open up that wallet baby...that's it..wider.....no..wider still....nope....just...one..more...0 to before the decimal.
Do a search for the pricing of Visual Studio Team System....EVERYBODY...EVERYONE....even MVP's who've been on the take for years, are complaining. They're trying to do to their tools business what they did to their office business. That's why you'll still see folks using Visual Studio 6 and VS.NET 2003 for years to come. Prices just aren't commensurate with what you get anymore. period.
Dude.....what are you nuts ??? I've tried WinCVS, TortoiseCVS ( definitely better than WinCVS, once you have your paths/configuration set up right ), and yes...GASP the command line CVS..and I can unabashedly tell you that Eclipse's CVS support is WAY better...
Right-Click->Team->Synchronize
Is that too hard to do ? Dude...the thing even has a merge view...get in touch with the program before you bitch and moan.
Geeze if folks like this are what colleges and universities are sending out into the industry, NO WONDER salaries are dropping !
Excuse me ? What is that ? An attempt at an insult or something ? "You must be a UI guy ?" You wish, buddy, you wish.
JDeveloper is a step in the right direction, but it still, if you're focus is on ANYTHING other than creating middle-ware or EJB's, sucks rocks.
Eclipse's achilles heel is having a DataPresentation automation plugin. Those that there are, are WAY too expensive for mere mortals. However, just about anything else, I've found Eclipse is as good or better than any of the other Java IDE's.
As for VS.NET, there's always ReSharper ( from our friends who bring us IntelliJ ), or SharpFactory. I prefer ReSharper ( hint: less expensive, same features as the more expensive one ). That being said, with VS.NET 2005, the point will be moot because at least for C#, Refactoring will be built into the IDE.
VS.NET does load faster than Eclipse when bringing up a "comparable" solution ( for you M$ heads ) or workspace ( for Eclipsers ). I think that may be to Eclipse's "everything is a plugin but the workbench" OSGi approach. However, that being said, I think that that also makes Eclipse a whole lot easier to extend and repackage. Think about that when looking at either WebSphere Application Developer 5 or the new Rational AD workbench.
Then you didn't look deep enough. Take a look at either of these two:
www.cloudgarden.com ( Jigloo...$75 ! )
www.instantiations.com ( WindowsBuilderPro $299, with less expensive versions for just SWT or just SWING at $199 each ).
I am NOT a representative of either company, however, I am a developer who's developed an Eclipse-workbench based RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) application using SWT, and I can tell you first hand. It is A LOT easier to develop a Java UI heavy application under Eclipse with EITHER of these plugins, versus NetBean, IntelliJ, OR JBuilder ( all of which I either have or have used in the past )...
I suggest you take a deeper look. You won't go back to JBuilder. I haven't.
creating GUI application in JBuilder has become progressively harder and harder ( even NetBeans was easier to use ). The only two plugin products I would see necessity of are WindowsBuilderPro ( for SWT/Swing development ), Jigloo ( if you're looking for a less expensive alternative to GUI building ), and MyEclipse for Web/J2EE development.
The only thing is that a Web UI server side code designer ( ala WebMatrix, or VS.NET with ASP.NET ) is still kind of lacking. There is a one ultra-thin client solution, but the company who makes it has chosen to price their product into the stratosphere, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone trying to start up development on a reasonable budget.
They've been doing quite well. The #1 GUI Designer for Eclipse-based applications is $299 and I and another fellow recently used it ( it was the only extra plugin we used ) to produce an SWT-based Rich GUI application. We used eclipse to create a middle-ware layer to our backend systems, and frankly.
That's because as an industry, as long as the professional organizations like ACM and IEEE remain "optional" and not required, the industry will flow from malaise-ish fad to malaise-ish fad over and over again. XP, Agile, Scrumm, Patterns, Anti-Patterns.....JHC ! C'mon people.
I've been in the industry for over 20 years now. I started as an intern....counting fish for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Building up a database of fish catches, and preparing migration plots. New grads today come out of school, and they think because M$ gave them VS.NET Enterprise ARCHITECT for $99, that they suddenly come equipped with the "armaments for battle" necessary to develop "the next great thing". Ok, if you are...then do it. Do it on your own. Because any company you come into, was there before you got there, had to fend for itself against it's competitors without you. And for as "stupid and out of their minds" the other engineers and managers might be. They still got the job done.
Personally, too many CS grads come out of college thinking they hold "the keys to kingdom". Guess what, the line forms at the door.
I agree that things have to be done to "turn the tide", as now the industry has to deal with outsourcing overseas ( and those clowns with the converted cruise ship 3 miles off of SoCAL trying to convince folks that that's a viable "off shore" outsourcing alternative ), and the "commoditizing" of software itself. However, I think it has to start with the "Professionalization" of the industry.
Which was to my point. Thanks for reinforcing it.
And of course, ( and may the gods of software have mercy on me for the heresy I'm about to commit ) GCC is the be-all end-all we should compare everything to ? C'mon....seriously. Wasn't GCC CREATED in part as an ALTERNATIVE to the other ( for various reasons ).
Yeah, and NeXT didn't exactly THRUST ObjC into the forefront of PC-based ( or any other SYSTEM based software ) development. As I recall, just before NeXT got sold to Apple, there was a release ( although I'm not entirely certain it was a commercial level release ) of NeXT for X86-based CPU's. Did Apple ever push that ?
Look, stop being so defensive about it. I'm not going to sit here and say that C++ is the be-all end-all of software development languages. But there a WHOLE lot more developers who program in C++ than in ObJC. Why is that again ? Given it's been a pre-processor source language for GCC for that long, the question still remains....why do you think it hasn't ( or didn't ) reach "critical mass" ? You're not actually going to play the "C++ hype" card are you ?
C'mon. C++ may not necessarily be "friendly" by modern standards, but at least C++OX is still being managed as a language with a clear standard. Who again manages the ObjC standard again ?
Check out GNU's own page for the answer to that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html
( Psst..Huge Spoiler: Nobody manages a standard for Objective-C or Objective C++ )
And to really bake folks' noodles, try this on for size:
http://cs.northwestern.edu/~josha/objcpp.pdf
I most especially like the part about how in OS X, Objective-C++ mysteriously disappeared from the NeXT libraries.
C'mon...ObjC has it's uses, but could Apple have made NeXT ( OS X ) more accessible to C++ developers, and not anchor themselves so tightly to Smalltalk-ish syntax ( Oh, I just know some SmallTalk Guru will come down on me about that statement ).
The point is that while C++ continues to grow and evolve...ObjC has for the most part, not done so.
You're absolutely right. That was the only thing I hated about writing software for the Amiga. Having to create ports for Intuition ( or just about any other API-like layer within AmigaOS ) just to get event notifications.
Of COURSE, there are lots of other HLL's which are very well suited to the tast of system level integration interfaces, and those you mentioned are quite valid. If you look the "Wirth" languages ( The Heirs of Pascal ), Modula, and Oberon ; they were to varying degrees the basis for designing complete system software. I give a special mention to Oberon because of it's "unnamed" descendents. Perhaps you might've heard of some of them.....Java....C#...either of those sound familiar ?
I'm glad someone came out and clearly said it....
"none will be the efficient system programming language that objc is".
For "system-level" programming, it perhaps is stronger or perhaps more "flavorful" than straight c is. BUT......we're not just talking about "system-level" programming here are we ? No.
While C++ can be used for system level programming, it can be ( and has been ) used highly successfully for application level development. OBJC is NOT application level developer friendly. Folks can try to put a spin on it saying it's just us not "getting it". Oh please, spare us. You think it's no small reason why there isn't an objective-c compiler ( other than the free "Portable Object Compiler" available on "thefreecountry.com" ) for any other OS other than OS X ? ( Yes I know there's GnuStep for Windows, Linux, etc. )
Do you think Objective-C didn't make inroads into the more general consciousness of C-like language developers minds because of some conspiracy ? Seriously, back when Objective-C was coming into being, many of us knew of it, some of us explored into using it, but frankly it just didn't provide that much MORE than other alternatives out there, to make it the "choose instead of" choice. It also didn't help that for the most part, it didn't get a commercial push by any non-Apple company.
With the emergence of the IPod and "Switchers" I suspect that more than a few developers will be acquainting ( or RE-Acquainting ) themselves with Objective-C. Hopefully that will do something to boost it's acceptance and mindshare ( and eventually marketshare ) with developers, but that remains to be seen.
Simula ? Simula bolted onto C ?....Dude..you gotta stop taking some of those 'scribed drugs you're talking about. But Simula ? GMAB.
However, I will agree that Java is C++ on serious downers ( Yeah, that was a jab at you C# guys too ).
I also agree that C isn't exactly a great choice to build an OO-based system upon. But, C is a wonderful system to build the underpinnings of an OS, upon which OO infrastructures can be laid upon, to create an application framework. Oh my, I just described Linux, well lookie there.
Objective-C doesn't necessarily have to be done away with, so much as it needs to be plastered over with a more "sentient" application framework layer. Apples Java is woefully inadequate performance-wise ( and it shows ), but Mono seems to be "looking up" in that respect.
When you add it all up, what OS X needs is more straight-forward "blanket" API layer that doesn't necessarily rely on "Messages". Many of those structures ( ala SmallTalk ) were designed in the long ago ( and hey, I've been around for a long time ), and while those constructs may have been useful for accomplishing things so as to not have to deal with even "dirtier" details of the underlying system, today it's just so much baggage that a developer would have to carry around with them. I taught myself Objective-C out of necessity, but would I EVER truly use it out of desire ? Absolutely, unequivocably, NO F'ING way. I don't know how Hillegass ( Author of "Cocoa Programming for MAC OS X" ) can make statements like "Objective-C is a simple and elegant extension to C". Objective-C may "look" simple in it's visual represenations of method:
- (void) setIt:(AnotherObject *)sender
{
[object setIdMethod:[sender parameter]]
}
vs
void Object::setIt(AnotherObject sender)
{
object.setIdMethod(sender.parameter);
}
But get much more involved than this, and let me tell Objective-C gets a WHOLE LOT uglier than any C ( or C++ ) performing comparable functions.
Like you said...
NetBeans.....JBuilder...>WebSphere AD ( can you smell the "eclipse" underneath )....oh...and yes...VS.NET. Just about every IDE out there is WAY top heavy....
Please take your cynical a$$ out of the discussion, you unkempt, command-line hugging ( Oh, that's right, you said your are an EMACS head....nevermind, that explains it, go on about your business ).
This is what it SHOULD'VE looked like...sorry about that...
------- Plain Ol' Text ------------------
Think....OSGi. Look it up. At the core of Eclipse is the OSGi framework ( now running in your favorite mid to upper range BMW's navigation system, among other things ). The OSGi framework is nice, but GOD is it big ! As the co-developer of a commercial product built around Eclipse and OSGi ( sorry...confidentiality agreements are a biatch, aren't they ? ), I can testify that as nice as it is to have a "plug-in infrastructure around you", the "Extension points" mechanism sucks wet wind. It's entirely too textually driven. It's good to have the ability to define extension points, etc., but to have to "fill in the blanks" manually sucks.
I can also agree with folks' comments about the weird behaviors for:
1. Code Completion
2. Code markup ( i.e. live parsing for programmatical errors ).
3. Switching "Perspectives" just to look at something simple, is a royal PITA.
4. The concept of RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) applications still have a ways to go before being completely baked. 8Mb for a "Hello World" RCP application ? GMAB !
That being said, Eclipse has some very nice features. I love their refactoring support, I like their reference finder, I even like that I can drag and drop items from an explorer window right into whatever package you're working on.
Up until now my BIGGEST complaint is the lack of a VISUAL designer. The default designer offered by the Eclipse foundation is still only partially cooked ( Geeze, even the WebSphere 5.1 designer was in better shape ). With SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro things got kicked up a notch ( but $299 for a designer that's still for the most part under development ? C'mon, get serious. ). There's Jigloo, which is less expensive ( $75 ), but it's far from having the same functionality as SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro.
The thing that irks me the most about Eclipse itself, is that it's basically a whole lot of scaffolding. You want to do J2EE, JSP or Struts....go buy Nitrox or the MyEclipse set of plugins ( sure MyEclipse is $29.99, but it's yet again, a little green behind the gills ). You want to do UML, you can use EMF ( and take serious amounts of sedatives ) or you can use OMondo ( or any of the others ), and take your chances. There's even plugins from rival Java IDE provider Borland ( Together Edition for Eclipse...gotta love those folks who still haven't figured out that before you can collaborate, you have to be able to CREATE ).
All in all, Eclipse is a nice alternative to the overly expensive IDE's out there ( C'mon, does JBuilder REALLY have to cost over a $1000 ? Get real ? WebSphere Application Developer.....$2K+Plus ? Seriously ? )...But the problem is, that at it's core, it's still pretty barren. It's as I said before, the scaffolding for you to start hanging up the rest of the scene. And when you start adding up what you have to buy here, and there. You eventually get this feeling that you've been nickled and dimed to death. Sure, some of the plugins that are out there are nice, and they do serve their purpose for the most part, but c'mon !
- Honest opinion from someone's who actually delivered software ( and continues to ) using Eclipse. -
Think....OSGi. Look it up. At the core of Eclipse is the OSGi framework ( now running in your favorite mid to upper range BMW's navigation system, among other things ). The OSGi framework is nice, but GOD is it big ! As the co-developer of a commercial product built around Eclipse and OSGi ( sorry...confidentiality agreements are a biatch, aren't they ? ), I can testify that as nice as it is to have a "plug-in infrastructure around you", the "Extension points" mechanism sucks wet wind. It's entirely too textually driven. It's good to have the ability to define extension points, etc., but to have to "fill in the blanks" manually sucks. I can also agree with folks' comments about the weird behaviors for: 1. Code Completion 2. Code markup ( i.e. live parsing for programmatical errors ). 3. Switching "Perspectives" just to look at something simple, is a royal PITA. 4. The concept of RCP ( Rich Client Platform ) applications still have a ways to go before being completely baked. 8Mb for a "Hello World" RCP application ? GMAB ! That being said, Eclipse has some very nice features. I love their refactoring support, I like their reference finder, I even like that I can drag and drop items from an explorer window right into whatever package you're working on. Up until now my BIGGEST complaint is the lack of a VISUAL designer. The default designer offered by the Eclipse foundation is still only partially cooked ( Geeze, even the WebSphere 5.1 designer was in better shape ). With SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro things got kicked up a notch ( but $299 for a designer that's still for the most part under development ? C'mon, get serious. ). There's Jigloo, which is less expensive ( $75 ), but it's far from having the same functionality as SWT Designer/WindowsBuilder Pro. The thing that irks me the most about Eclipse itself, is that it's basically a whole lot of scaffolding. You want to do J2EE, JSP or Struts....go buy Nitrox or the MyEclipse set of plugins ( sure MyEclipse is $29.99, but it's yet again, a little green behind the gills ). You want to do UML, you can use EMF ( and take serious amounts of sedatives ) or you can use OMondo ( or any of the others ), and take your chances. There's even plugins from rival Java IDE provider Borland ( Together Edition for Eclipse...gotta love those folks who still haven't figured out that before you can collaborate, you have to be able to CREATE ). All in all, Eclipse is a nice alternative to the overly expensive IDE's out there ( C'mon, does JBuilder REALLY have to cost over a $1000 ? Get real ? WebSphere Application Developer.....$2K+Plus ? Seriously ? )...But the problem is, that at it's core, it's still pretty barren. It's as I said before, the scaffolding for you to start hanging up the rest of the scene. And when you start adding up what you have to buy here, and there. You eventually get this feeling that you've been nickled and dimed to death. Sure, some of the plugins that are out there are nice, and they do serve their purpose for the most part, but c'mon ! - Honest opinion from someone's who actually delivered software ( and continues to ) using Eclipse. - Oh...and for the guy who quipped about having to have 1Gb of RAM....Rock on brothah...he's on the money. I had 512Mb when I started on the project, it was totally unusable with that little ram, 1Gb just about made it useful.
And from talking to my Mgr friend at EB.... SCEA actually sent out an email to all EB district managers stating UNEQUIVOCABLY that it would not accept as "defective returns" units that had dead pixels. The fact that Sony tries to slight this off when just a few months ago Nintendo came out publicly saying that they would REPLACE any DS's that had screens with blown pixels, is such a disappointment. I smell CLASS-ACTION ( anyone know a good class action lawyer ? ). Before any of the fanboys descend on me.....I have both. I like the DS alot, but I'm still waiting for the games ( the Metroid Prime teaser level is getting old now ). The PSP has an incredible screen ( except for the REALLY noticeable dead spots ). I have to agree with folks that Sony needs to produce UMD-R's. But more importantly, it needs to own up to the dead pixel issues. No excuses.....
That's not necessarily the answer either. Because in a big city like Miami, programmer salaries are the worst I've ever seen them. Sure you can go "boo-hoo on you" to me, but the fact is that being in the industry for about 20 years, and being able to demonstrate proficiency in .NET && Java && MFC && etc.etc. just to meet a mocked up Job Req ( because HR Depts. LOVE buzzwords ) isn't any help. When you get down to discussing $$$ amounts with any recruiter or HR dept, you will invariably get amounts that are 15-20% LOWER than they were prior to 9/11.
.Bomb company either. I mean as a Team Lead ( where you best know your shit ), or even one of those ( All of your American Programmers need to "become" )Architects positions.
/. would just for ONCE f$king present research for software engineers as well as IT workers, instead of glomming both fields together ) salaries "MIGHT" grow 0.5%, when the salaries are already depressed considerably more to begin with.
.Bombs of the world".
And I don't mean in IT overall, and I don't mean for doing work at a "trumped up"
It doesn't matter that IT ( Geez, I wish
I spoke with a recruiter the other day, and despite being fawned over because of my background, the bottom line is that it came down to $$$. Her "defense" was that "there are still lots of people out there willing to work for less". My answer: "And most of those people are the ones who chased after the
>You do realize there is difference between "could >do" and "could do well", don't you?
Yes, and in most cases, it's "almost, but not quite", not, "just as good". Of course, you're presuming that the companies here actually tried to find someone who "could do well"....yeah, right, and if you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy.
Don't be silly...
Screw DUPE. I was the first to report it to /., the first night after MacWorld had started.....do YOU think that putz of a Moderator ( Timothy ) bothered to post it ? Hell no.
Back then it was backed with pictures of something called the "iHome", which looks a little similar to the mini...almost the same form factor, but with slightly different labelling.....oh well..guess us non-subscribers aren't good enough to post stories from.
It's not just your previous company, MANY MANY MANY companies have the "Cog-maker" mentality now.
Yeah, and a little booklet from Robert Half is one of the tools that our company president ( and the Dir. of Engineering ) tried to used to justify why raises after a three year moratorium were so low. According to Robert Half, salaries for a Sr. Software Engineer are valued lower toward than they have for 10 years. Yes, you heard right. Salaries have gone DOWN since 1995 ( and that....was BEFORE the DOTBOMB bubble ).
Tech turn around......show me the money. Then we'll talk tech turn around.