I disagree, fairly strongly.... > > type 1 people will -1 or -10 any high level or visual feature request,
Not true, we'll -1 (btw, the -/+ 10 is very silly, people don't get 10 votes) things that do NOT contribute towards the task at hand, which is writing java code. I like visual features, and I'll all for features that make coding a more pleasant enjoyable experience. > 1- they are afraid IDEA developpers could postpone the next hundred editor > tweekings they have in mind, and think they could not be productive > without them. It's like that saying 'god is in the details'. There are tens of java editors out there, all of which allow you to compile, edit, have autocompletion of some sort, etc etc. But the attention to detail and wonderful usability is what makes me choose IDEA. > 2- they are afraid IDEA will become slow > 3- they are afraid IDEA will become big > > You don't mix up requirements collections with time, cost, architecture and > technology. You just tell what you need. > Again, I disagree. Many many projects fail because the goal is too ambitious and nebulous. You DO take time, cost, and effort into consideration. If you didn't, the whole science of cost benefit analysis would seem rather pointless. > point 2 : have some faith, in Intellij, your VM vendor and Intel (or..). > Don't tell me me you fear they would have to rewrite in in C. > Look at Together : it's big, it's fast, and it does code auditing. More disagreement. I hate together because it's SO painfully slow. The editor is practically unusable. The interface is ugly, and it screams 'ugly java app' at me. I only use it for modelling, which it does fairly well. > point 3 : Who cares if the next EAP is 20M big. If you download the eap build > at 56K, poor you. > This is 2001, year of cable speed, cheap hard disk and cheap memory. > Nobody cares about hard drive space, but 20M implies a bigger memory footprint too, and a bunch of useless crap that almost nobody will care about. The more code you have, the more bugs you have. It's a scientific fact that isn't open for debate. > > I say type 2 people are right. > IDEA is a tool, and I use it to solve problems, using java technology. > Java technology is becoming more complex by the day. No it isn't. The language complexity has not changed at all. There are more APIs, and as the language matures more design patterns emerge, but it's not more complex. I guess it depends on your definition of complexity. > Why does IDEA force me to edit all those xml configuration files as ascii > text? Sure, I'm all for an xml editor, a DTD aware xml editor would speed up my development, once the java editing aspects are close to perfect. Note that I do NOT want an editor that shows xml as a tree view, and forces me to click around like a retard to get anything done. We're professional java developers here (hopefully) and not taking Java 101 hoping for our IDE to hold our hands through the darkness that is java APIs. > > We have to think ROI here, guys. > I'm sure you could tweek the editor till 2010, but it wouldn't help us write > better software. The editor is no longer n�1 when you think ROI. It's almost > good enough. Nonono! Your BRAIN will help you write better software. If it were an automated art, it would have been done long ago. It's not like software development started last year or something. > I love the keyboard, but I want higher level features. And some visuals too > (the class hierarchy browser is not a gadget. This is the way to go) > Well, this is where I'll put my faith in the IDEA team. My personal preference would be actually for more focus on performance tuning. I'm slowed down by IDEA sometimes, and I still do find myself missing the speed of emacs now and then. I can see myself switching back if IDEA started automatically drawing UML diagrams for me whenever I clicked on a package, or spent so much cpu time worrying about what I'm going to want to do next and what I've done in the past that it forgets to prioritise what I'm doing RIGHT NOW. Besides, if you want an editor that does everything, switch to forte/netbeans. A great example of the idiocy of having an API so open that it's impossible to get any kind of performance out of it. Believe it or not there is NO ideal end result. There are conflicting goals here and it's up to the IDEA team to prioritise appropriately. You CANNOT have an IDE which does everything and is also blindingly fast for those of us who have no interest in the quick hit appeal of a shiny object dangled in front of us. Whatever happens, it'll be somewhat of a mix between the two, my personal hope, of course, is that it's in my favour! Hani _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
