|Re: [ide-dev] Java IDEs comparison|
On 09/14/2016 04:34 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
It was for sure the beginning of a difficult era for the IDE (as perceived by users), but I don't see any end on the horizon.
Do you remember the times before p2? Basically, having a plugin working was really a miracle, taking hours, requiring to read a lot of similar story, requiring to read some Eclipse log to figure out what's wrong and imagine what could be a solution.
p2 is definitely something really helpful, for sure it wasn't a trivial change. But see where we are now: p2 delivers the promise that everything that installs runs, that you can install old content on new Eclipse and vice-versa - and still if it installs then it runs-, it has very useful (although not trivial) error messages allowing to figure out the cause of any issue, it has allowed to move build to maven, it allows the Simultaneous Release and Tycho-based builds to detect at build-time of possible conflicts, it has a remediation page that is quite helpful in most cases...
With the size of the Eclipse ecosystem, a dependency management at install-time was and is a must-have; p2 is a good solution. I don't know how IntelliJ or other platforms deal with the fact that content can come from multiple sources, maybe they require people to rebuild content or to re-test it to get to a newer release. With p2, those steps can be avoided.
Bashing p2 as it's done in the article is IMO a clear sign that the author doesn't have a sufficient knowledge of the needs nor of the solution related to the installation story to write about it.
I like how Eclipse IDE looks on Fedora Linux. There is an important bug about UX and theming: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=325937 . However, no-one really considered it as important enough for other OSs right now.
Are we a product focused organization? Do every involved contributors want this?
Back to the top