Well, even the most fanatical VI user I know has moved to using an Eclipse VI plugin now, so I really can't imagine very many (other than people that also spend their weekends carving wheels out of stone :-) really using it these days. As far as Emacs is concerned, I must admit that I myself still use it when I'm doing bulk editing (my fingers just automatically hit those ctrl keys), but it's not my IDE (it's just an editor). I know that Emacs is still used as a Java IDE by a few people, but not very many.
I'm sure we could discuss the pros and cons of various tools indefinitely, but the bottom line is that Eclipse is used by LOTS of people, not just a few. Jeremy may not want to alienate non-Eclipse users, but avoiding that by alienating the large (Eclipse users) group doesn't make sense either. Jim, you said this: > If we find that Maven consistently > causes problems for a wide variety of developers, then we should > change to something better. But more sensible would be to say "causes problems for a large percentage of developers", which is the case. I don't know exactly how to handle this, but just saying all you crazy Eclipse users are on your own, isn't going to help. I don't think Jeremy's portrayal of Eclipse as some piece of junk with an ongoing stream of problems is really the case either, it just seems to me that the bottom line is that Eclipse has a few problems integrating with Maven that need to be addressed. I'm sure both the Eclipse and Maven communities have a vested interest in seeing that happen. Frank Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/07/2006 10:02:35 AM: > > On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:03 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > I completely agree with Frank. > > > > Also whether or not it is possible to get free copies of IDEA is > > beside the > > point, a lot of people use Eclipse so we need to embrace that if we > > want to > > encourage them to contribute to Tuscany. > And a lot of people use IDEA, Emacs, VI, etc. For example, most of > the developers I know use IDEA and Emacs, not Eclipse (even though > the Eclipse juggernaut has significantly more market share) . The > point is twofold. We need to accommodate as many as possible, not > just Eclipse users. The second is checking in unverifiable artifacts > is bound to lead to a break at some point. > > > ...ant > > > > On 9/7/06, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I would say that thinking about Eclipse as just one of a many IDEs > >> that > >> people may be using is totally off the mark. In reality, there are > >> only a > >> very few popular Java IDEs (two, actually), and Eclipse is the > >> free one. > >> So, in my opinion, not accommodating Eclipse seems ludicrous - it > >> will > >> inconvenience a lot of people. I would think that the more productive > >> route would be to say that we officially support Eclipse and that > >> we file > >> Eclipse bug reports and/or create (temporary) workarounds to make > >> sure > >> that it works. Saying that people have an alternative (simply > >> shelling out > >> $500 for IDEA) doesn't sound very convincing to me either. > >> > I'm sorry but I believe thinking about Eclipse as just one of the > many IDEs is completely valid. We need to be as open as possible, > particularly since there is no good reason in my mind why we should > "anoint" a particular IDE for Tuscany developers (and that goes for > IDEA too). For me, the question is not about accommodating Eclipse > but having a build process that works with the tool we chose, Maven, > and making it easy for developers using a variety of tooling > environments. Otherwise, we should use Eclipse to do the build and > mandate that it is run prior to checkin ;-) > > The need to accommodate a variety of development environments is a > balancing act. In the specific case that prompted Jeremy's rant, a > problem in Eclipse resulted in the introduction of a change to the > build process that makes working with Maven, particularly for > distributions, extremely difficult. I think we should err on the side > of Maven. Another example would be a hypothetical bug in, say, the > IDEA compiler. If it only occurs in one place, maybe we could put a > work-around in the code as long as it did not impact performance or > cause drastic changes for others. If it required something like a > performance hit or not using an important language feature, IDEA > users would need to accommodate. If we find that Maven consistently > causes problems for a wide variety of developers, then we should > change to something better. > > Jim > > > >> Frank. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
