Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Language IDEs » PHP Development Tools (PDT) » PDT falling behind on purpose?
PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67063] Mon, 10 March 2008 17:58 Go to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: hertzel.hotmail.com

HI, I just noticed that many of the features that are being requested
here are now implemented in Zend Studio 6, and afaik PDT and Zend are
sharing the same dev team..

what do you guys think?
examples are:
refactoring
test unit
ftp....
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67085 is a reply to message #67063] Tue, 11 March 2008 12:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: michael.zend.com

Hertzel Armengol wrote:
> HI, I just noticed that many of the features that are being requested
> here are now implemented in Zend Studio 6, and afaik PDT and Zend are
> sharing the same dev team..
>
> what do you guys think?
> examples are:
> refactoring
> test unit
> ftp....

That's what I never understood too!
How come?! There are missing features in Microsoft Studio Express
Edition, even though the same team is developing MSVC2008, and there are
a lot of features!
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67095 is a reply to message #67085] Tue, 11 March 2008 14:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: eclipse-news.mark-kirchner.de

Michael Spector schrieb:
> How come?! There are missing features in Microsoft Studio Express
> Edition, even though the same team is developing MSVC2008, and there are
> a lot of features!

Although I see and - to quite a degree - understand your point, there is
an important diffrence here: Microsoft has never integrated any part of
Studio into Eclipse - which is kind of equal to stating "Look, we are
doing this the open-source-way!".
Zend on the other hand did this and would (IMHO of course) be ill
advised to turn questions like the current one down in this way. Sarcasm
usually doesn't seem to be a good way of dealing with neither users nor
potential customers.

Regards,
Mark
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67115 is a reply to message #67095] Tue, 11 March 2008 15:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Spector is currently offline Michael SpectorFriend
Messages: 110
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member

Mark Kirchner wrote:
> Michael Spector schrieb:
>> How come?! There are missing features in Microsoft Studio Express
>> Edition, even though the same team is developing MSVC2008, and there
>> are a lot of features!
>
> Although I see and - to quite a degree - understand your point, there is
> an important diffrence here: Microsoft has never integrated any part of
> Studio into Eclipse - which is kind of equal to stating "Look, we are
> doing this the open-source-way!".
> Zend on the other hand did this and would (IMHO of course) be ill
> advised to turn questions like the current one down in this way. Sarcasm
> usually doesn't seem to be a good way of dealing with neither users nor
> potential customers.
>
> Regards,
> Mark

I'm sorry if my sarcasm was out of place, but this is my PERSONAL
opinion - I'm not writing in this thread on behalf of company I work for
(pay attention: I've changed my reply-to address in order to not confuse
anybody). I think there are three options to answer questions like this
politely:

1) Sweet tells (you can use predefined template) about investing more
features into the open source product in the future (no time estimations
though)

2) One can help open source project by developing missing features
himself - nobody prevents him from doing that.

3) Do not answer at all.

What do you prefer?

We should better understand the difference between open source and
proprietary software and how they help each other to survive...
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67156 is a reply to message #67115] Wed, 12 March 2008 20:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: hertzel.hotmail.com

I know the difference between comercial and open source, my point is why
they keep saying the same things (we are workingon it), if they do not
have plans to bring it back to the open source version... I pretty sure
that they same is gonna happen with inner folding (if, while, etc)

Michael Spector wrote:
> Mark Kirchner wrote:
>> Michael Spector schrieb:
>>> How come?! There are missing features in Microsoft Studio Express
>>> Edition, even though the same team is developing MSVC2008, and there
>>> are a lot of features!
>>
>> Although I see and - to quite a degree - understand your point, there
>> is an important diffrence here: Microsoft has never integrated any
>> part of Studio into Eclipse - which is kind of equal to stating "Look,
>> we are doing this the open-source-way!".
>> Zend on the other hand did this and would (IMHO of course) be ill
>> advised to turn questions like the current one down in this way.
>> Sarcasm usually doesn't seem to be a good way of dealing with neither
>> users nor potential customers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark
>
> I'm sorry if my sarcasm was out of place, but this is my PERSONAL
> opinion - I'm not writing in this thread on behalf of company I work for
> (pay attention: I've changed my reply-to address in order to not confuse
> anybody). I think there are three options to answer questions like this
> politely:
>
> 1) Sweet tells (you can use predefined template) about investing more
> features into the open source product in the future (no time estimations
> though)
>
> 2) One can help open source project by developing missing features
> himself - nobody prevents him from doing that.
>
> 3) Do not answer at all.
>
> What do you prefer?
>
> We should better understand the difference between open source and
> proprietary software and how they help each other to survive...
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67166 is a reply to message #67156] Fri, 14 March 2008 06:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lester Caine is currently offline Lester CaineFriend
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hertzel Armengol wrote:
> I know the difference between comercial and open source, my point is why
> they keep saying the same things (we are workingon it), if they do not
> have plans to bring it back to the open source version... I pretty sure
> that they same is gonna happen with inner folding (if, while, etc)

Told you so comes to mind.
Zend only got involved with taking control of PHP on Eclipse to make money so
PDT is their doorway to selling the full suite?
PHPEclipse on the other hand is not restricted and is implementing these sorts
of features.
Many of them were already available before PDT came on the scene ;)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67176 is a reply to message #67166] Fri, 14 March 2008 13:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: dcarver.starstandard.org

Lester Caine wrote:
> Hertzel Armengol wrote:
>> I know the difference between comercial and open source, my point is
>> why they keep saying the same things (we are workingon it), if they do
>> not have plans to bring it back to the open source version... I pretty
>> sure that they same is gonna happen with inner folding (if, while, etc)
>
> Told you so comes to mind.
> Zend only got involved with taking control of PHP on Eclipse to make
> money so PDT is their doorway to selling the full suite?
> PHPEclipse on the other hand is not restricted and is implementing these
> sorts of features.
> Many of them were already available before PDT came on the scene ;)

One thing that would help in this "perception" of one company
controlling PDT, is for the PDT team to bring in committers from PHP
Eclipse. To diversify the development team of committers a bit. I
believe at one time that the PHPEclipse team approached the PDT team to
combine the two projects, but that didn't seem to go anywhere.

A good successful open source project needs that project diversity so
that no one companies view dominates the process. As it is now, it
seems to be dominated by one company which tends to give the
"perception" of PDT not meeting the needs of the community but the needs
of it's individual company first.

Just follow the blog posts about "e4" to see how dangerous the wrong
perception from the community can get.

Dave
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67186 is a reply to message #67176] Fri, 14 March 2008 14:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lester Caine is currently offline Lester CaineFriend
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009
Member
David Carver wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> Hertzel Armengol wrote:
>>> I know the difference between comercial and open source, my point is
>>> why they keep saying the same things (we are workingon it), if they
>>> do not have plans to bring it back to the open source version... I
>>> pretty sure that they same is gonna happen with inner folding (if,
>>> while, etc)
>>
>> Told you so comes to mind.
>> Zend only got involved with taking control of PHP on Eclipse to make
>> money so PDT is their doorway to selling the full suite?
>> PHPEclipse on the other hand is not restricted and is implementing
>> these sorts of features.
>> Many of them were already available before PDT came on the scene ;)
>
> One thing that would help in this "perception" of one company
> controlling PDT, is for the PDT team to bring in committers from PHP
> Eclipse. To diversify the development team of committers a bit. I
> believe at one time that the PHPEclipse team approached the PDT team to
> combine the two projects, but that didn't seem to go anywhere.

The PDT team's 'sales pitch' was for a clean code base and they did not want
to include any code from other sources. That was the reason they would not
back PHPEclipse then.

> A good successful open source project needs that project diversity so
> that no one companies view dominates the process. As it is now, it
> seems to be dominated by one company which tends to give the
> "perception" of PDT not meeting the needs of the community but the needs
> of it's individual company first.

It would have made more sense when we were trying to get PHPEclipse adopted
*AS* the php framework for cooperation rather than obstructions to it's adoption.

> Just follow the blog posts about "e4" to see how dangerous the wrong
> perception from the community can get.

I'm more than happy with PHPEclipse, and I can build the code base if I NEED
to and I know a LOT of people feel the same way. Which is another reason PDT
is not getting as good a take up as some would like :)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67216 is a reply to message #67186] Fri, 14 March 2008 21:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: hertzel.hotmail.com

I agree, I was a phpeclipse user for more than 2 years, and I know that
they're a small dev tem (2-4), and they're not being payed at all for
their work (and they already have mark occurrences which is something
that I love) , but their auto complete support is not that good as PDT.
They also have phpunit (which PDT lacks, not ZEND though), and many
others... because I remember 1 year when I requested Mylyn Integration
and Im still waiting for it...

Lester Caine wrote:
> David Carver wrote:
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>> Hertzel Armengol wrote:
>>>> I know the difference between comercial and open source, my point is
>>>> why they keep saying the same things (we are workingon it), if they
>>>> do not have plans to bring it back to the open source version... I
>>>> pretty sure that they same is gonna happen with inner folding (if,
>>>> while, etc)
>>>
>>> Told you so comes to mind.
>>> Zend only got involved with taking control of PHP on Eclipse to make
>>> money so PDT is their doorway to selling the full suite?
>>> PHPEclipse on the other hand is not restricted and is implementing
>>> these sorts of features.
>>> Many of them were already available before PDT came on the scene ;)
>>
>> One thing that would help in this "perception" of one company
>> controlling PDT, is for the PDT team to bring in committers from PHP
>> Eclipse. To diversify the development team of committers a bit. I
>> believe at one time that the PHPEclipse team approached the PDT team
>> to combine the two projects, but that didn't seem to go anywhere.
>
> The PDT team's 'sales pitch' was for a clean code base and they did not
> want to include any code from other sources. That was the reason they
> would not back PHPEclipse then.
>
>> A good successful open source project needs that project diversity so
>> that no one companies view dominates the process. As it is now, it
>> seems to be dominated by one company which tends to give the
>> "perception" of PDT not meeting the needs of the community but the
>> needs of it's individual company first.
>
> It would have made more sense when we were trying to get PHPEclipse
> adopted *AS* the php framework for cooperation rather than obstructions
> to it's adoption.
>
>> Just follow the blog posts about "e4" to see how dangerous the wrong
>> perception from the community can get.
>
> I'm more than happy with PHPEclipse, and I can build the code base if I
> NEED to and I know a LOT of people feel the same way. Which is another
> reason PDT is not getting as good a take up as some would like :)
>
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67225 is a reply to message #67216] Fri, 14 March 2008 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: dcarver.starstandard.org

Hertzel Armengol wrote:
> I agree, I was a phpeclipse user for more than 2 years, and I know that
> they're a small dev tem (2-4), and they're not being payed at all for
> their work (and they already have mark occurrences which is something
> that I love) , but their auto complete support is not that good as PDT.
> They also have phpunit (which PDT lacks, not ZEND though), and many
> others... because I remember 1 year when I requested Mylyn Integration
> and Im still waiting for it...
>

One thing that could help move things along, and I'm not a PDT committer
or anything, but is to also provide some patches to go along with the
requests. I realize that not everybody here knows java to be able to
contribute, but those that do, providing patches can help a lot. If
the patches go unanswered, then we as a community just to need to be
more vocal and express our concerns in constructive ways.

Personally, I still think it would be good for the PHP community to have
the talents from PHPEclipse and PDT combine forces. It would help
diversify the committer pool, and help keep the PDT from becoming
stagnant when Zend has their own development projects to work on.

Dave
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67246 is a reply to message #67225] Sat, 15 March 2008 07:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lester Caine is currently offline Lester CaineFriend
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009
Member
David Carver wrote:
> Hertzel Armengol wrote:
>> I agree, I was a phpeclipse user for more than 2 years, and I know
>> that they're a small dev tem (2-4), and they're not being payed at all
>> for their work (and they already have mark occurrences which is
>> something that I love) , but their auto complete support is not that
>> good as PDT.
>> They also have phpunit (which PDT lacks, not ZEND though), and many
>> others... because I remember 1 year when I requested Mylyn Integration
>> and Im still waiting for it...
>>
>
> One thing that could help move things along, and I'm not a PDT committer
> or anything, but is to also provide some patches to go along with the
> requests. I realize that not everybody here knows java to be able to
> contribute, but those that do, providing patches can help a lot. If
> the patches go unanswered, then we as a community just to need to be
> more vocal and express our concerns in constructive ways.
>
> Personally, I still think it would be good for the PHP community to have
> the talents from PHPEclipse and PDT combine forces. It would help
> diversify the committer pool, and help keep the PDT from becoming
> stagnant when Zend has their own development projects to work on.

While that would possibly be nice it's doubtful that it is going to happen.
Despite the assurances that PDT is open source, the commercial ties present a
brick wall for many potential contributes. Me included. Why should I
contribute to a project only then to see that work directly in commercial
versions as well. Yes I know people can acquire code from anywhere to use
commercially, but I should not HAVE to buy a commercial package just to get
some 'extras' and PHPEclipse is open enough for that to be the goal while PDT
is simply handicapped by its commercial pedigree :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67256 is a reply to message #67246] Sat, 15 March 2008 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com

Lester,

Everything you contribute to any Eclipse project is likely to end up in
some commercial application somewhere, so I'm a little taken aback by
your statement. To balance that off though, I must say that I was much
more taken aback by the first answer to the original question in this
note chain. It seems like a grossly undiplomatic way to treat folks in
the community, though I understand the basis.

There are two opposing points of view here both of which need careful
consideration. On the one hand, a commercial vendor paying employees to
develop software that's given away for free and ultimately finds them
self unable to generate revenue from such investment will at some point
cease to invest or exist. After all, making money isn't in some way
evil; we all must do it, and that money pays for many of the great
things we see at Eclipse. On the other hand, the community at Eclipse
is perfectly free to contribute to PDT anything they feel is useful to
put there. I'll assume that's the case; if there are actual barriers as
opposed to perceived, assumed, or self imposed barriers, those should be
tested so they can be torn down. Whatever is contributed, while adding
value to a commercial package, is just as likely to undermine the
ability to generate revenue from the commercial package because the
differentiation that justifies its price would diminish. So the very
reluctance to contribute to PDT is precisely what will preserve the
status quo.

As someone who gets paid to work on things that are given away for free
and as someone who spends a huge amount of my personal time to donate
things that are given away for free, I'm all too aware of the balancing
act that's needed to make this all work. The community expects a
certain amount of momentum in a framework's feature set while a
commercial vendor expects to generate revenue from value-add on top of
what's free. If the latter fails, only altruism will drive things
forward, and even generous contributors need to make money to pay their
bills.

So I can only suggest to treat the community with respect and for the
community to get involved.


Lester Caine wrote:
> David Carver wrote:
>> Hertzel Armengol wrote:
>>> I agree, I was a phpeclipse user for more than 2 years, and I know
>>> that they're a small dev tem (2-4), and they're not being payed at
>>> all for their work (and they already have mark occurrences which is
>>> something that I love) , but their auto complete support is not that
>>> good as PDT.
>>> They also have phpunit (which PDT lacks, not ZEND though), and many
>>> others... because I remember 1 year when I requested Mylyn
>>> Integration and Im still waiting for it...
>>>
>>
>> One thing that could help move things along, and I'm not a PDT
>> committer or anything, but is to also provide some patches to go
>> along with the requests. I realize that not everybody here knows
>> java to be able to contribute, but those that do, providing patches
>> can help a lot. If the patches go unanswered, then we as a
>> community just to need to be more vocal and express our concerns in
>> constructive ways.
>>
>> Personally, I still think it would be good for the PHP community to
>> have the talents from PHPEclipse and PDT combine forces. It would
>> help diversify the committer pool, and help keep the PDT from
>> becoming stagnant when Zend has their own development projects to
>> work on.
>
> While that would possibly be nice it's doubtful that it is going to
> happen. Despite the assurances that PDT is open source, the commercial
> ties present a brick wall for many potential contributes. Me included.
> Why should I contribute to a project only then to see that work
> directly in commercial versions as well. Yes I know people can acquire
> code from anywhere to use commercially, but I should not HAVE to buy a
> commercial package just to get some 'extras' and PHPEclipse is open
> enough for that to be the goal while PDT is simply handicapped by its
> commercial pedigree :(
>
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67265 is a reply to message #67256] Sat, 15 March 2008 12:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lester Caine is currently offline Lester CaineFriend
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009
Member
Ed Merks wrote:
> Lester,
>
> Everything you contribute to any Eclipse project is likely to end up in
> some commercial application somewhere, so I'm a little taken aback by
> your statement. To balance that off though, I must say that I was much
> more taken aback by the first answer to the original question in this
> note chain. It seems like a grossly undiplomatic way to treat folks in
> the community, though I understand the basis.

I'll trim the rest although it is relevant.

A lot of time was spent TRYING to get PHPEclipse adopted as the PHP platform
for Eclipse - and I spent time on that exercise, but 'commercial interests'
have a bigger pull :(
IMAGINE where PHPEclipse would be today if one tenth of the time spent
reinventing it in PDT and been spent simply improving it?

SO - no I am not interested in spending time on PDT and will continue to
campaign for PHPEclipse to get the recognition by Eclipse that it deserves.
but since 'co-operation' requires money to oil the wheels I don't have any
confidence that anything will change :(

Windows is the biggest piece of trash going. Microsoft give away a lot of
'free' product to prevent anything else from competing with it and a lot of
money to maintain is illegal monopoly. But at least now some countries are
realising that the only way to break the circle is to cooperate with and use
the free options. Money is then used to train people rather than to be
deposited in US bank vaults ;)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67275 is a reply to message #67265] Sat, 15 March 2008 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com

Lester,

Comments below.

Lester Caine wrote:
> Ed Merks wrote:
>> Lester,
>>
>> Everything you contribute to any Eclipse project is likely to end up
>> in some commercial application somewhere, so I'm a little taken aback
>> by your statement. To balance that off though, I must say that I
>> was much more taken aback by the first answer to the original
>> question in this note chain. It seems like a grossly undiplomatic
>> way to treat folks in the community, though I understand the basis.
>
> I'll trim the rest although it is relevant.
>
> A lot of time was spent TRYING to get PHPEclipse adopted as the PHP
> platform for Eclipse - and I spent time on that exercise, but
> 'commercial interests' have a bigger pull :(
> IMAGINE where PHPEclipse would be today if one tenth of the time spent
> reinventing it in PDT and been spent simply improving it?
I see. That's very frustrating. I'm sure you were told that there are
no rules against competition at Eclipse. But that doesn't mean it
doesn't suck and doesn't mean that more couldn't be done to encourage
better cooperation. Clearly money talks, but cooperation speaks with a
more pleasant voice. Sorry for making comments without knowing more of
the history.
>
> SO - no I am not interested in spending time on PDT and will continue
> to campaign for PHPEclipse to get the recognition by Eclipse that it
> deserves. but since 'co-operation' requires money to oil the wheels I
> don't have any confidence that anything will change :(
I understand your position better now...
>
> Windows is the biggest piece of trash going. Microsoft give away a lot
> of 'free' product to prevent anything else from competing with it and
> a lot of money to maintain is illegal monopoly. But at least now some
> countries are realising that the only way to break the circle is to
> cooperate with and use the free options. Money is then used to train
> people rather than to be deposited in US bank vaults ;)
>
It's sure tempting to make politically incorrect remarks. I could rant
about my experience with Vista, for example. And as far as I understand
it, the US bank vaults are running a little low on cash these days,
having given so much of it away at ridiculously low interests rates.
Oddly enough, we all pay a price for that. I just couldn't resist!

Often I find that directly opposing something proves futile. I think of
it this way. If something is going somewhere I don't like, I can try to
stop it, but it might be stronger than me. But if I try to redirect it
where I want it to go, even if I'm relatively weak compared to the
force, by pushing at right angles, I can still effect small changes and
in the long term, those small changes can accumulate and lead to a very
different endpoint than would have been reached without my influence.

Will you be at EclipseCon? I'd like to understand more about what's
going on here...
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67285 is a reply to message #67275] Sat, 15 March 2008 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lester Caine is currently offline Lester CaineFriend
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009
Member
Ed Merks wrote:
>> Windows is the biggest piece of trash going. Microsoft give away a lot
>> of 'free' product to prevent anything else from competing with it and
>> a lot of money to maintain is illegal monopoly. But at least now some
>> countries are realising that the only way to break the circle is to
>> cooperate with and use the free options. Money is then used to train
>> people rather than to be deposited in US bank vaults ;)
>>
> It's sure tempting to make politically incorrect remarks. I could rant
> about my experience with Vista, for example. And as far as I understand
> it, the US bank vaults are running a little low on cash these days,
> having given so much of it away at ridiculously low interests rates.
> Oddly enough, we all pay a price for that. I just couldn't resist!
I'm stripping XP in places and putting it back to W2k simply to improve
reliability so Vista has no chance! But I don't want to get involved in THAT
discussion. I use what is cost effective, works and does not involve panic
runs to rebuild machines that 'updates' have trashed :(

> Often I find that directly opposing something proves futile. I think of
> it this way. If something is going somewhere I don't like, I can try to
> stop it, but it might be stronger than me. But if I try to redirect it
> where I want it to go, even if I'm relatively weak compared to the
> force, by pushing at right angles, I can still effect small changes and
> in the long term, those small changes can accumulate and lead to a very
> different endpoint than would have been reached without my influence.
I have my finger in the gap on a couple of projects and am making progress
slowly - you will see from my sig I normally end up with the underdog, and
having 15 years invested in Firebird/Interbase I know exactly what you are saying.
Some long term 'windows only' customers are now coming back and asking about
moving the PHP and Firebird servers to Linux so I must be doing something right :)

> Will you be at EclipseCon? I'd like to understand more about what's
> going on here...
I couldn't even afford to get over to Germany for the Firebird conference so
the States is definitely out :( ( time as well as money wise ;) )

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #67294 is a reply to message #67265] Sun, 16 March 2008 12:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Spector is currently offline Michael SpectorFriend
Messages: 110
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member

Lester Caine wrote:
> A lot of time was spent TRYING to get PHPEclipse adopted as the PHP
> platform for Eclipse - and I spent time on that exercise, but
> 'commercial interests' have a bigger pull :(
> IMAGINE where PHPEclipse would be today if one tenth of the time spent
> reinventing it in PDT and been spent simply improving it?
>

I don't understand why cannot these two projects coexist? Why not let
people choose preferable IDE as long as each of these IDE has its own
features? Lets hundreds of volunteers from over the world work hard on
both projects in order to make them better - the final decision will be
up to user!
Re: PDT falling behind on purpose? [message #69657 is a reply to message #67294] Tue, 29 April 2008 18:16 Go to previous message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: codeslave.ca.ibm.com

Try this for an experiment:

i. Offer to fix a bug in both projects, and see who takes you up on the
offer. (Or ask both projects to participate in Bug Day[1], then sign up.)

ii. After a few contributions (bug reports, wiki contributions, patch
submissions) to either / both projects, ask to be made a committer. See
what happens.

IMHO, the project that encourages and accepts contributions from the
community and fosters committer diversity is the one that deserves the
bigger adopter community.

The two camps are not about to join forces any time soon. But you can
offer to join one or both to help them out and build a better PHP dev
experience for yourself and for others.

Nick

[1]http://wiki.eclipse.org/BugDay#2008

Michael Spector wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> A lot of time was spent TRYING to get PHPEclipse adopted as the PHP
>> platform for Eclipse - and I spent time on that exercise, but
>> 'commercial interests' have a bigger pull :(
>> IMAGINE where PHPEclipse would be today if one tenth of the time spent
>> reinventing it in PDT and been spent simply improving it?
>>
>
> I don't understand why cannot these two projects coexist? Why not let
> people choose preferable IDE as long as each of these IDE has its own
> features? Lets hundreds of volunteers from over the world work hard on
> both projects in order to make them better - the final decision will be
> up to user!
Previous Topic:No folding, no code completion... this used to work... what happened?
Next Topic:pdt - DNS problems
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Feb 04 02:37:58 GMT 2023

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.12347 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top