|Re: [ide-dev] Java IDEs comparison|
On 7 Sep 2016, at 17:33, Michael Scharf wrote:
On 2016-09-07 20:34, Doug Schaefer wrote:There’s one comparison which drives the rest, IMHO. JetBrains has a product focused organization while Eclipse does not.That kind of means, JetBrains is using the 'Cathedral' approach and Eclipsethe 'Bazaar' approach, right? The last years I have been working on Web applications, and I see the endless waste of resources by the wild Bazaar of the Web. Compared to the Web, Eclipse is a Cathedral.Yes, there is much more diversity on the Bazaar, but eventually something great might come out, but for my taste there too much reinventing the wheel,and abandoning things that started with great promises. Developing software for 40+ years makes me wonder, why the same thingshave to be invented over and over again. It is like our industry is notlearning and each generation of developers is excited about inventing the same things again and again.I don’t know the internal organization of JetBrains, but their products show they have a strong architect who sees the big picture of their entire product suiteHmm, once again I have to refer to an article I wrote some time ago on the topic how we could make eclipse more attractive again:http://michaelscharf.blogspot.gr/2014/05/how-to-make-eclipse-attractive-to-new.htmlDoug, you may remember the early discussions about the eclipse architecture when we met the first times. At that time, I have been working for 10+ years on an IDE (SNiFF+) where we had an generic editor and a language service (external parsers with a dedicated protocol to talk to the IDE). At that time it was not possible to get any of those ideas into eclipse. People wanted to build ADT, BDT, CDT, ... JDT ... ZDT. Instead of a more common DT.Instead of separating the IDE in terms of services (like why is makefilesupport part of CDT) the Eclipse is separated by language. When I first read about language server, I started laughing, because Dirk Bäumer was one of the SNiFF+ developers and it sounds a lot likere-vitalizing some of SNiFF+ architecture, but going a step further ;-).SNiFF+ had an integration with emacs, where SNiFF+ was a kind of language server for external editors...... but who cares about history, it's all about reinventing the wheel...
You can read about the history of the protocol in https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/wiki/Protocol-History
and makes sure they have the frameworks in place that they all can reuse to make their products consistent, integrated, and easy to construct.Again the Cathedral approach... However, language server is a way to separate concerns and could bring eclipse back into the game... ... maybe it's time again for the architecture council to talk about architecture again ... MichaelAnd they have a strong product manager who knows what excites users and drives the development team to build those things. The Eclipse IDE team does not. That is why every IDE project does things slightly differently and why important features for users don’t get done. I love the great ideas we’re talking abouthere. They’re not worth much unless we also hear how we can get themdone. Doug._______________________________________________ ide-dev mailing list ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Back to the top