From markm at onpointsoftware.com Tue Nov 6 08:06:32 2007 From: markm at onpointsoftware.com (Mark Morris) Date: Tue Nov 6 08:35:17 2007 Subject: whywebobjects.org domain Message-ID: <43390DE1-FE28-41A4-86E1-E30F85B56D67@onpointsoftware.com> Hello all, Unfortunately, I never organized anything with whywebobjects.org (or whywebobjects.net or whywebobjects.info). I grabbed these back when we realized that someone hijacked whywebobjects.com (which is still unavailable). It's time to renew them, and I thought I'd ask if anyone would be interested in utilizing these domains. Anyone? Regards, Mark From bon_d at mac.com Wed Nov 7 17:04:43 2007 From: bon_d at mac.com (David BON) Date: Wed Nov 7 17:04:54 2007 Subject: Slogan In-Reply-To: <164B85AF-1A1E-4E81-9B69-5A52030DC8DF@sportstec.com> References: <53795e1f0711050044j6c0f2b4dp99151ac02dea99d2@mail.gmail.com> <74ED59A5-86F0-4824-91D6-3CBB4EF99E58@roider.org> <7969DF04-B895-4052-A6C3-AA42CC4F71AC@aspireauctions.com> <53795e1f0711071134u2535eeadva2d5a240e9e24a89@mail.gmail.com> <553A10C4-57A5-4D02-A863-5B144B9D8FAD@mac.com> <3113205C-E860-4AA6-A08C-38E7B08D12CB@quattromultimedia.com> <21AF4D02-4FAF-4A03-A5B3-0CE22D1DCBF3@yaboogie.com> <164B85AF-1A1E-4E81-9B69-5A52030DC8DF@sportstec.com> Message-ID: <4096F475-1FD0-4695-B8F6-816E332CDCB7@mac.com> Hi list, What is this slogan supposed to underline? (1) The development side of the WebObjects framework(s) ? (2) The advantages of running WebObjects application? (3) Both ? (4) Something else? Proposals: (1) something like: "WebObjects, the H-S3 technology for Web applications : High-Speed Design, High-Speed Build, High-speed Deploy". (2) on the same basis, something like: "WebObjects, the S3 technology for Web applications : Simple, Secure, Scalable" (Could add the H with "Highly..." for consistency). (3), either choose the 3 most relevant words in the list or go directly to H-S_6_ technology (which could be also HS3^2 ;-) ) (4) : I'll keep reading the posts, surely I will find out what :-) In every case, as WebObjects is a new kind of techno (different from J2EE, PHP/Mysql and so on...), so why not launching a brand new "techno-fashion" with it (for sure, that's pure marketing, isn't it?) Anyway, I wonder what would be your 2 or 3 words you will use (at first think) when answering the question "Why WebObjects?" Cheers, David B. Le 8 nov. 07 ? 00:44, Ian Joyner a ?crit : > Not much going on on wo-talk, so I may as well put these > suggestions here (WO is actually quite a difficult thing to come up > with a sound bite for). I think we should be more directly saying > what WO does in as few words as possible. So what I can think of is: > > WebObjects: Your Enterprise on the Web > WebObjects: The Enterprise on the Web (although that is a little > less "what can it do for me", and might bring out the Trekkies) > Your Enterprise on the Web ? WebObjects > > That way, it has the product name, it immediately has the word > (admittedly cringeworthy) Enterprise to say it might do something J > EE does, and maybe even Ruby. No in-joke play on words either. > > Ian > > On 08/11/2007, at 10:51 AM, Pierre Bernard wrote: > >> Spiders would use WebObjects >> >> ;-) >> >> >> On Nov 8, 2007, at 12:42 AM, Joshua Archer wrote: >> >>> Since we're just having fun here... >>> >>> 1) WO is Me >>> >>> 2) Tell me your tales of WO >>> >>> 3) WebObjects puts the WO in WOnder >>> >>> >>> On Nov 7, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Marioni wrote: >>> >>>> WebObjects ? I WOAnt it ! >>>> >>>> I WOant it ! >>>> I WO-Ant it ! >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:37 PM, James Cicenia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yo Love Wo >>>>> >>>>> -j- >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>>>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/wodev% >>>>> 40quattromultimedia.com >>>>> >>>>> This email sent to wodev@quattromultimedia.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/joshua% >>>> 40yaboogie.com >>>> >>>> This email sent to joshua@yaboogie.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/webobjects- >>> lists%40houdah.com >>> >>> This email sent to webobjects-lists@houdah.com >> >> - - - >> Houdah Software s. ? r. l. >> http://www.houdah.com >> >> HoudahGeo: One-stop photo geocoding >> HoudahSpot: Powerful Spotlight frontend >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ian.joyner% >> 40sportstec.com >> >> This email sent to ian.joyner@sportstec.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/bon_d%40mac.com > > This email sent to bon_d@mac.com From rnell at sempratrading.com Sun Nov 11 15:03:51 2007 From: rnell at sempratrading.com (Nell, Roger) Date: Sun Nov 11 15:05:07 2007 Subject: WebObjects JavaConverter? References: <577CF6D3F0AF83489727B5D50F31E2D804AE46D9@STMAIL1.SEMPRATRADING.COM> Message-ID: <577CF6D3F0AF83489727B5D50F31E2D804AE46DB@STMAIL1.SEMPRATRADING.COM> Hello, I'm working on a project to convert an Objective C WebObjects application to Java. I have searched on Apple's web site for several hours and although I can find many references to JavaConverter I can't find the software and it doesn't seem to be include in the current release of xcode 2.5. Please point me in the right direction. Roger Nell **************************************************************************** This e-mail contains privileged attorney-client communications and/or confidential information, and is only for the use by the intended recipient. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege. Reading, disclosure, discussion, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient or his or her employees or agents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us and delete the original material from your computer. Sempra Energy Trading LLC (SET) is not the same company as SDG&E or SoCalGas, the utilities owned by SET's parent company. SET is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and you do not have to buy SET's products and services to continue to receive quality regulated service from the utilities. Sempra Energy Europe disclosure: Sempra Energy Europe Limited registered in England & Wales No. 3704235 registered office 111 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1SE United Kingdom. Sempra Energy Trading (UK) Limited registered in England & Wales No. 3526627 registered office 111 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1SE United Kingdom FSA firm reference number 188751. Sempra Energy Trading Holdings Limited registered in England & Wales No. 3704239 registered office 111 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1SE United Kingdom. *************************************************************************** From chill at global-village.net Tue Nov 13 10:33:38 2007 From: chill at global-village.net (Chuck Hill) Date: Tue Nov 13 10:33:49 2007 Subject: WebObjects JavaConverter? In-Reply-To: <577CF6D3F0AF83489727B5D50F31E2D804AE46DB@STMAIL1.SEMPRATRADING.COM> References: <577CF6D3F0AF83489727B5D50F31E2D804AE46D9@STMAIL1.SEMPRATRADING.COM> <577CF6D3F0AF83489727B5D50F31E2D804AE46DB@STMAIL1.SEMPRATRADING.COM> Message-ID: <3AA4A021-4162-4D9D-B599-007DCB1309A0@global-village.net> Hi Roger, It was never available for download. It came with WebObject 5.0 (I think, maybe with 4.5 too) but is no longer distributed. Ask on the Dev list, maybe someone has a copy lying around that they can send you. If you have an ADC membership (paid) you can probably ask Apple to dig up a copy for you. Chuck On Nov 11, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Nell, Roger wrote: > Hello, > I'm working on a project to convert an Objective C WebObjects > application to Java. I have searched on Apple's web site for > several hours and although I can find many references to > JavaConverter I can't find the software and it doesn't seem to be > include in the current release of xcode 2.5. Please point me in > the right direction. > > Roger Nell > -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects From bon_d at mac.com Sun Nov 25 12:27:06 2007 From: bon_d at mac.com (David BON) Date: Sun Nov 25 12:27:11 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools Message-ID: Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? Support in key areas (...) ? WebObjects development tools (...) David B. From berneyb at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 18:11:06 2007 From: berneyb at hotmail.com (Berney Bradley) Date: Mon Nov 26 18:13:13 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ Message-ID: I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when compared to the latest from MS? I checked the wiki and it seems there is a lack of competitive analysis between WO and other technologies. Can anyone comment on why someone would choose WO over .Net, in light of the recent LINQ release? I'm looking for technical reasons, not emotional or political arguments ;-) TIA Berney From dleber at codeferous.com Mon Nov 26 18:40:01 2007 From: dleber at codeferous.com (David LeBer) Date: Mon Nov 26 19:22:48 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <187B81AD-D97A-4F4E-8CC0-E0C2FD3BFFCB@codeferous.com> On 25-Nov-07, at 3:27 PM, David BON wrote: > Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple > support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence > mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? > > Support in key areas > (...) > ? WebObjects development tools > (...) The Apple WO tools are deprecated not evaporated :-) If you are using WO 5.3 or earlier with the Xcode tool set Apple will support you with that service contract. I doubt they mean Eclipse/WOLips, but you'd have to ask them. ;david -- David LeBer Codeferous Software 'co-def-er-ous' adj. Literally 'code-bearing' site: http://codeferous.com blog: http://davidleber.net profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidleber -- Toronto Area Cocoa / WebObjects developers group: http://tacow.org From lachlan.deck at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:22:54 2007 From: lachlan.deck at gmail.com (Lachlan Deck) Date: Mon Nov 26 22:23:08 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/11/2007, at 1:11 PM, Berney Bradley wrote: > I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ > (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when > compared to the latest from MS? > > I checked the wiki and it seems there is a lack of competitive > analysis between WO and other technologies. Can anyone comment on > why someone would choose WO over .Net, in light of the recent LINQ > release? I'm looking for technical reasons, not emotional or > political arguments ;-) From my cursory glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_Query LINQ is an sql-esq language construct for .Net. So you're essentially writing sql in your code such as seen on the above page. WebObject's EOF, on the other hand, abstracts sql from you (unless you need it) so you're always dealing with Objects. This document may help... 'Working with EOF: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/WebObjects/ Enterprise_Objects/index.html with regards, -- Lachlan Deck From pierce at twinforces.com Mon Nov 26 22:11:37 2007 From: pierce at twinforces.com (Pierce T. Wetter III) Date: Mon Nov 26 22:31:05 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David BON wrote: > Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple > support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence > mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? > > Support in key areas > (...) > ? WebObjects development tools > (...) It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even sponsoring it to some extent. Pierce From tuparev at mac.com Mon Nov 26 23:48:06 2007 From: tuparev at mac.com (Georg Tuparev) Date: Mon Nov 26 23:48:18 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David BON wrote: > >> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >> >> Support in key areas >> (...) >> ? WebObjects development tools >> (...) > > It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java > then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports WOLips > as the development tool for WebObjects and is even sponsoring it to > some extent. It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO community. -- georg -- "I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." Arthur Hays Sulzberger From arroz at guiamac.com Tue Nov 27 03:52:03 2007 From: arroz at guiamac.com (Miguel Arroz) Date: Tue Nov 27 03:52:13 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: <4872E2E2-8C5D-4DEC-916A-D9075F1262B2@guiamac.com> Hi! On 2007/11/27, at 07:48, Georg Tuparev wrote: >> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >> sponsoring it to some extent. > > It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and > elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO > community. Why do you love xCode so much? I really hate it, even for ObjectiveC. For Java is really really bad, there was even a version (the one than included WO 5.3.1 I think) where the Java errors were displayed simply as "error", with no explanation or even the offending code line. Is that a good IDE? It's not elegant at all. It's confusing, over-simplistic in some ways, over-complicated in other ways. It doesn't do ANYTHING for you. Look, I simply don't have to deal with imports, in Eclipse. How can you even tolerate the fact that you have to manually write all the import statements on every class and keep them consistent? I have classes where I have more than 30 import statements! I *don't* want to deal with that. I want the IDE to do that for me. And Eclipse does. Initially, I had the same reaction as you. Nothing worked, lots of bugs, etc. But today, things (Eclipse and WOLips) are *much* better, and if you make an effort to overcome the it's-not-an-Apple-product- so-it-sucks prejudice, you'll see you'll learn to love Eclipse. Don't take this personally, sometimes things in mail (specially written for someone like me that doesn't speak english as the main language) may seem rude and offending, that's not the point. I'm just saying that *I wish* I could use Eclipse for every programming language I have to work with. It's just that good. I really don't find any advantage in xCode. Not a single one at all. Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com From dleber at codeferous.com Tue Nov 27 05:00:16 2007 From: dleber at codeferous.com (David LeBer) Date: Tue Nov 27 05:00:31 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: <456D196A-7DCA-4BDE-8661-B4D3206376D2@codeferous.com> On 27-Nov-07, at 2:48 AM, Georg Tuparev wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote: > >> >> On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David BON wrote: >> >>> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >>> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >>> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >>> >>> Support in key areas >>> (...) >>> ? WebObjects development tools >>> (...) >> >> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >> sponsoring it to some extent. > > It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and > elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO > community. And I think that this means that Georg is angry and bitter and prone to making gross, over simplified, generalizations. But honestly Georg, this is getting tired. If you have a better solution to our current predicament that doesn't include somehow getting Apple to reverse their decision... Please act on it. ;david -- David LeBer Codeferous Software 'co-def-er-ous' adj. Literally 'code-bearing' site: http://codeferous.com blog: http://davidleber.net profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidleber -- Toronto Area Cocoa / WebObjects developers group: http://tacow.org From pierce at twinforces.com Tue Nov 27 08:33:07 2007 From: pierce at twinforces.com (Pierce T. Wetter III) Date: Tue Nov 27 08:33:15 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: >>> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >>> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >>> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >>> >>> Support in key areas >>> (...) >>> ? WebObjects development tools >>> (...) >> >> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >> sponsoring it to some extent. > > It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and > elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO > community. I dunno if I'm a _proponent_ of Eclipse, I was just countering the implied FUD because I'm not sure the fact that WO has been divorced from XCode means anything one way or another. I think rather that WOLips+Eclipse surpassed Apple's tools awhile ago. That's mostly due to neglect on Apple's part. I actually hated Eclipse when I first started with it. I would still never use it for Cocoa programming. Even now, I'm not sure I *like* Eclipse. Pretty much all of our developers have ended up having to have two monitors because of Eclipse's insistence on taking over the screen. But Eclipse is really, really tuned for Java development. There's a whole bunch of stuff in Java that sounds easy (like setting up a classpath/package/etc.) but that turns out to be really tedious as your project gets large. Eclipse deals with all that tediousness, and it really, really, groks java. The fact that I can select a method call in the middle of the code and command click it and it will correctly figure out what class that variable is and take me to the definition is very, very cool. Xcode can do some of that stuff for Objective-C, but for Java, not so much. For the same reason, if you're using Ruby on Rails, you have to use TextMate. Pierce From mschrag at mdimension.com Tue Nov 27 08:58:01 2007 From: mschrag at mdimension.com (Mike Schrag) Date: Tue Nov 27 08:58:10 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> > I dunno if I'm a _proponent_ of Eclipse, I was just countering the > implied FUD because I'm not sure the fact that WO has been divorced > from XCode means anything one way or another. I think rather that > WOLips+Eclipse surpassed Apple's tools awhile ago. That's mostly due > to neglect on Apple's part. > > I actually hated Eclipse when I first started with it. I would still > never use it for Cocoa programming. Even now, I'm not sure I *like* > Eclipse. Pretty much all of our developers have ended up having to > have two monitors because of Eclipse's insistence on taking over the > screen. > > But Eclipse is really, really tuned for Java development. There's a > whole bunch of stuff in Java that sounds easy (like setting up a > classpath/package/etc.) but that turns out to be really tedious as > your project gets large. Eclipse deals with all that tediousness, > and it really, really, groks java. The fact that I can select a > method call in the middle of the code and command click it and it > will correctly figure out what class that variable is and take me to > the definition is very, very cool. Xcode can do some of that stuff > for Objective-C, but for Java, not so much. > > For the same reason, if you're using Ruby on Rails, you have to use > TextMate. Maybe the best characterization of Eclipse so far ... It's essentially how I feel, also. Would Eclipse be a lot slicker if it was NOT written in Java? Absolutely -- like every Java desktop application compared to a proper native replacement, in my opinion. But the effort to replace it at this point, given the sheer mass of libraries and power it brings with it would be extraordinary. At every stage, I consider writing "the next feature" in Cocoa, and every time I end up back in Eclipse. There just is no Cocoa analog to the libraries that are available in Eclipse for navigating/managing/editing/refactoring Java code. So it's either write a crazy RPC server on top of Eclipse that exposes its Java manipulation features to a Cocoa app (which I have seriously considered and which just sounds incredibly painful on both sides of that service), or sacrifice the slickness of a Cocoa app to get some real work done now by building it in Eclipse. Mind you, three years ago I talked to a couple Xcode people at WWDC and said "PLEASE ... Give me a plugin API. I will make cool things if you just open it." But Apple doesn't see that as a priority, so you get what Apple decides to give you. At this point, Apple decides to give you a subpar Java IDE (relative to the world of Java IDE's -- I'm not just talking Eclipse here -- pick any of them, IDEA, NetBeans, Eclipse, whatever -- they hands down beat Xcode in terms of Java productivity tools). This is one of the large impediments to making a nice WOB replacement ... I don't think you can make a nice enough end-user experience in pure SWT, but I don't think you can make a capable enough tool in pure Cocoa. ms From bruce at iterative.com Tue Nov 27 09:21:45 2007 From: bruce at iterative.com (Bruce Fancher) Date: Tue Nov 27 09:28:41 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: <8C031A94-D652-4DD1-9546-148E3B340DC4@iterative.com> I agree. Eclipse has a lot of warts, but for Java development, XCode doesn't even come close to comparing with it. Anyway, whether or not you agree with Apple's decisions wrt WebObjects development tools, I don't think it's reasonable to blame "Eclipse proponents." BTW, if you really don't like Eclipse, some people also use IDEA for WebObjects development, so you might want to give that a try, and I'm sure you could even use NetBeans if you were so inclined. Bruce On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote: > >>>> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >>>> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >>>> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >>>> >>>> Support in key areas >>>> (...) >>>> ? WebObjects development tools >>>> (...) >>> >>> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >>> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >>> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >>> sponsoring it to some extent. >> >> It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and >> elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO >> community. > > > > I dunno if I'm a _proponent_ of Eclipse, I was just countering the > implied FUD because I'm not sure the fact that WO has been divorced > from XCode means anything one way or another. I think rather that > WOLips+Eclipse surpassed Apple's tools awhile ago. That's mostly due > to neglect on Apple's part. > > I actually hated Eclipse when I first started with it. I would still > never use it for Cocoa programming. Even now, I'm not sure I *like* > Eclipse. Pretty much all of our developers have ended up having to > have two monitors because of Eclipse's insistence on taking over the > screen. > > But Eclipse is really, really tuned for Java development. There's a > whole bunch of stuff in Java that sounds easy (like setting up a > classpath/package/etc.) but that turns out to be really tedious as > your project gets large. Eclipse deals with all that tediousness, > and it really, really, groks java. The fact that I can select a > method call in the middle of the code and command click it and it > will correctly figure out what class that variable is and take me to > the definition is very, very cool. Xcode can do some of that stuff > for Objective-C, but for Java, not so much. > > For the same reason, if you're using Ruby on Rails, you have to use > TextMate. > > Pierce > > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk From chill at global-village.net Tue Nov 27 10:03:34 2007 From: chill at global-village.net (Chuck Hill) Date: Tue Nov 27 10:03:46 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> Message-ID: On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > There just is no Cocoa analog to the libraries that are available > in Eclipse for navigating/managing/editing/refactoring Java code. > So it's either write a crazy RPC server on top of Eclipse that > exposes its Java manipulation features to a Cocoa app (which I have > seriously considered Eeew! Too much Jolt Cola! late at night. -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects From chill at global-village.net Tue Nov 27 10:32:58 2007 From: chill at global-village.net (Chuck Hill) Date: Tue Nov 27 10:33:05 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> Message-ID: <9EB19B4E-13D6-4AF7-9B4F-84404C5D5E25@global-village.net> On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Georg Tuparev wrote: > On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David BON wrote: >> >>> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >>> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >>> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >>> >>> Support in key areas >>> (...) >>> WebObjects development tools >>> (...) >> >> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >> sponsoring it to some extent. > > It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and > elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO > community. Georg, this becomes tiresome. I suspect that you would count me as an Eclipse proponent :-) and I am fairly sure that that I don't dislike beauty or elegance. I don't find Eclipse to be beautiful nor elegant. I did not find Xcode to be either. But I do admit to finding Eclipse to quite effective at developing WO applications. That is a feeling that Xcode never evoked. But, really, you did not come here to whine, did you? I have no doubt of the sincerity and depth of your dislike of Eclipse. And you are not alone. I read a quote somewhere to the effect of "If Eclipse is state of the art, then the art is in quite a state!". I can't argue against that. But there is one thing that I don't know that I would very much like to know. I don't know _why_ you think Eclipse is ugly and inelegant. I am looking for specifics here. I'd find it hard to believe that icon size and tab appearance are what gnaws at your sensibilities. You are a deeper thinker than that. You have stated several times how truly awful Eclipse is. Yet, when asked why all I have seen you respond with is bugs. So I am inviting you now to be part of the solution. Share your ideas with us. Please. Eclipse, as I am certain you know very well, is an platform for creating development environments. It is not a "set in stone" application wrapping make/jam/ant like Xcode is. It is a wildly configurable and tweak-able platform. We have the power and the desire to make it better. So please, take some time to help us understand what is wrong and what would make it right (or even better). It will make for a more usable product. It probably still won't make you happy, but it might make you happier. Look at Thomas. He came complaining of things missing. Then he got specific. And those issues were addressed and the Component Editor is much better for it. What we would like to see are things like: 1. I don't like that I have to _______ when I want to _______. It would be much better if I could just ______. 2. Having the _________ shown as ________ makes it very hard to understand. If they were done as ________ or _____ that would be a lot better. Regards, Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects From tuparev at mac.com Tue Nov 27 16:06:22 2007 From: tuparev at mac.com (Georg Tuparev) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:06:39 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools Message-ID: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> Folks, First of all I am happy this discussion moved to wo-talk mailing list. This is the correct place for this types of emotionally charged discussions. Second, I hope Pierre & Co. from Apple are listening. Will start with few opening remarks, before moving to the core of my statements. 1. It might seam that I have no idea about what I am talking about. The truth is, I use WO since version 0.7 (I believe Sep. 1995, when a NeXT employee sent me a prerelease copy). Since that time I was involved in many WO projects, trained many people (mostly here in Europe) , and created two companies around WO. To focus just on projects we have currently in my second company. This includes among others the largest european data warehouse project (chemical manufacturing), the police, and security forces training and info system of one of the largest EU countries, a banking system that is currently used by 57% of all dutch internet banking users, the largest online newspaper in the world (last stat is about 45 downloads every second), two major mobile phone networks, and and possibly the only existing control system for network of robotic astronomical observatories. A very conservative estimate of the user base that uses our software is about 6 million. This we achieved with a small team of about 10 people (on average) and non of us is a famous superstar. I am not telling this in order to impress anyone, but to make it clear, that: - I care very much about productivity, and - I have enough experience under by belt to claim I have a feeling about statistics and the community. 2. The fact that our team is not well known and not contributing actively to the community is not because we have nothing to say, but because with our clint base we are very restricted what we can tell, and even more so what we could share. This was one of the reasons I had to cancel a multi-volume book contract with AW about Cocoa and WO (after writing about 400 pages :( People who read this posting and are over 40 might remember that for many years I was maintaining GNUStep and was contributing to MiscKit and other open source initiatives. 3. Neither I nor any of my colleagues is "religious" about any platform, tool, or even hardware manufacturer. From IBM 360 to Apple ] [, from Sun Spark to Cray, and from IRIX to DEC's masspar and telecom satellites we used and developed software for many very strange systems, and most of them were interesting experience. Neither Xcode nor Eclipse is the first or the last IDE we will use. 4. I use Eclipse for all our WO projects already for few months, but for some smaller projects for about two years. So I am not guru, but also not complete greenhorn. Now concretely about the Xcode vs. Eclipse discussion. A. Productivity For many people productivity is measured in terms lines of working code per day, or speed of refactoring. We measured productivity in work done for the last three years (this choice is deliberate). Our way of working is as follow: think, think again, and think a bit more, write a small experiment, start thinking again... and in half year write few hundreds lines of source and the work is done. Will give an example. From the portfolio above one could imagine we have to deal with gazillions of legacy flat file formats, and to be able to load virtually any junk into the database. We do not like doing this again and again. So we developed a system based on two components. One is an engine (unix tool) that gets any file, a mapping, and produces an XML. The mapping is done with a specially designed graphics editor where with click and drag one (even a not very technical project manager) could describe the file format. Another tool is a single java class that loads XML files in arbitrary database (in terms of schema and not brand). The core of the unix tool and the java class together are written in ca. 900 lines of code (and 2-3kloc for the mapping editor). When writing 900 lines of code by two people for half year the difference between very sophisticated IDE or TextEdit is negligible. I would even go as far as saying that all the hundreds of Eclipse vies, configuration parameters, etc. is actually very hindering. On the other hand, I could install Xcode from a disk image, open a project and compile and run it without all the fuss. All these Eclipse bells & whistles are completely useless to me (even Xcode is often too complex :) and they slow me down. They disturb my flow of thoughts... BTW, for all these years, all of us together for all our projects wrote between 100 and 200 kloc. For comparison, a similar but not truly robotic telescope project after 6 years and after 300kloc is still not finished. What I claim here, is that the typical for so many developers over- reliance on complex tools and techniques does not lead to higher productivity, and at the end of the day the number of happy customers counts (to me at least) more then the number of buttons on the toolbar of my IDE. B. Esthetics. In one word - Eclipse is harassment to even the most modest sense of esthetics or beauty. It is a torture for the eyesight, it is ugly, distasteful, painfully inconstant and repulsive! It might contain countless smart and useful functions, but they a wrapped in dirt. And this mess is not because it is complex (as some did claimed). Only on that subject I could fill many pages, but I will skip it. I will only ask you why are you all using Apple hardware and Mac OS? Eclipse looks exactly as ugly on windows or Linux, yes? If you do not care about esthetics, why are you buying Mac and not one of these ugly cheap plastic bricks every computer shop around the corner sells for $500? Pierre, if you are reading, why don't you make the following experiment - open one project in Eclipse, go to Steve, tell him that Apple customers have to cope with this and watch his face :) C. New WO Developers In our team we have one guy that knows Eclipse inside-out and defends it to some extend. Few days ago I asked him the following question. Imagine a guy across the street reads about this fantastic framework called WebObjects, how it makes you more productive, etc. And he decides to be a WO developer. So he buys a Mac (with Leopard on it), and tries to write and deploy a simple WO application with a simple database of just one table. What is the chance of success? After some thinking he looked at me and told me - yes, you are right, the chance is close to zero. Do I need to go further and explain what does this mean for the future of WO? Final word Day after day I go to the office and work on extremely complex software systems that handle inter-banking transactions, mobile phone calls, or control of some very complex instruments. This pays the bills. In the evening I go home, have few hours with my family, and after every one is sleeping I start working on yet another complex software system that models the macro-molecular chemical pathways in our bodies (my goal is to understand how muscular dystrophies work, and hopefully help to find a cure... it is a hobby for me). In all these activities I have to think about two-phase commits, satellite links, chromatic aberration, or protein folding. I do not want to think about classpaths, or if I installed the version of WOLips from this afternoon. For me and countless other people the process of software development is just the way to achieve our goals and not the goal itself. We are professional economist, physicist, chemist, or biologist first, and software developers second. IDE is a tool, and as every tool in the hands of an amateur it must be first and foremost simple! Therefore many of us hate Eclipse. And believe it or not, people like me (amateur developers) are the majority of the users (exactly as there are more weekend photographers using iPhoto then professionals using Photoshop). Now, I can go on and replay few of the comments posted here, but I believe I made my point. Thank you for reading so far... Georg Tuparev Tuparev Technologies Klipper 13 1186 VR Amstelveen The Netherlands From lachlan.deck at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 16:26:11 2007 From: lachlan.deck at gmail.com (Lachlan Deck) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:26:51 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <4872E2E2-8C5D-4DEC-916A-D9075F1262B2@guiamac.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <4872E2E2-8C5D-4DEC-916A-D9075F1262B2@guiamac.com> Message-ID: On 27/11/2007, at 10:52 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: > On 2007/11/27, at 07:48, Georg Tuparev wrote: > >>> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for >>> Java then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now >>> supports WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is >>> even sponsoring it to some extent. >> >> It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and >> elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO >> community. > > Why do you love xCode so much? It's Xcode btw... > I really hate it, even for ObjectiveC. For Java is really really > bad, there was even a version (the one than included WO 5.3.1 I > think) where the Java errors were displayed simply as "error", with > no explanation or even the offending code line. Is that a good IDE? We're going to continue to see a complete impasse in these discussions... On one side of the fence we have: - the people who care about Java, compiling, coding... essentially programming/design tasks On the other side of the fence we have: - people who don't care so much about programming -- but getting stuff done simply via gui-driven tools. It seems never the twain shall meet in this particular thread... with regards, -- Lachlan Deck From wassim.jabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 16:37:19 2007 From: wassim.jabi at gmail.com (Wassim Jabi) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:37:34 2007 Subject: Fwd: Can I run Eclipse + WOLips using the Flex Builder installation? References: Message-ID: I am contemplating finally going back to WebObjects development using Eclipse and WOLips (I still have running WO 4.x applications that I maintain using Yellowbox tools on Windows) (the discussions have scared the heck out of me!).. but I already have Adobe Flex Builder 2.0 and that is of course built on top of Eclipse.. Can I use that? If so, anyone with experience in using the underlying Eclipse environment in Flex Builder for WebObjects development? Or do I have to download a new and different installation? I would also be interested in any comparison of WebObjects to Flex + PHP + MySQL. Thanks. -- Wassim Jabi, Ph.D. wassim.jabi@gmail.com http://wjabi.net +1 973-968-5100 From ian.joyner at sportstec.com Tue Nov 27 16:48:11 2007 From: ian.joyner at sportstec.com (Ian Joyner) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:48:24 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> Message-ID: <79F88C68-09D9-44DF-8D12-65F4D5E0ECA7@sportstec.com> On 28/11/2007, at 3:58 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> Maybe the best characterization of Eclipse so far ... It's >> essentially how I feel, also. Would Eclipse be a lot slicker if it >> was NOT written in Java? Absolutely -- like every Java desktop >> application compared to a proper native replacement, in my opinion. It is probably implied in Mike's thinking (although I would not want to presume), but I don't think anyone gave Georg what I think is the real reason Apple would drop its own tools ? cross-platform development. Apple obviously does not want to continue to have to support those who want to develop on other platforms by having to maintain Cocoa applications such as Xcode and WOBuilder on Windows ? that just holds their own development for Cocoa developers back. They obviously don't want to drop support for these developers altogether so the alternative is to hook into an IDE that is meant to be cross platform, even though it is written in Java and thus won't be as nice user interface wise. But you have to respect their decision not to drop WO completely and now to put their efforts into developing WO, not some out-dated tools (not that Xcode is outdated for Obj-C development, but outdated on Windows and WOB is outdated). I think that makes it a reasonable decision on the part of Apple, not that they have responded to some vocal minority. (Phew, was just about to click send when Mail crashed, but luckily it had saved this in drafts.) Ian From arroz at guiamac.com Tue Nov 27 16:58:09 2007 From: arroz at guiamac.com (Miguel Arroz) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:58:27 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools In-Reply-To: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> References: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> Message-ID: Hi! First, let me say that your CV is impressive, and I wish I already had all the experience and the knowledge you gained with all that work. Also, it's great to see that WO is being used in such serious places (banks, etc)! :) About Eclipse itself: On 2007/11/28, at 00:06, Georg Tuparev wrote: > A. Productivity > For many people productivity is measured in terms lines of working > code per day, or speed of refactoring. We measured productivity in > work done for the last three years (this choice is deliberate). Our > way of working is as follow: think, think again, and think a bit > more, write a small experiment, start thinking again... and in half > year write few hundreds lines of source and the work is done. Will > give an example. From the portfolio above one could imagine we have > to deal with gazillions of legacy flat file formats, and to be able > to load virtually any junk into the database. We do not like doing > this again and again. So we developed a system based on two > components. One is an engine (unix tool) that gets any file, a > mapping, and produces an XML. The mapping is done with a specially > designed graphics editor where with click and drag one (even a not > very technical project manager) could describe the file format. > Another tool is a single java class that loads XML files in > arbitrary database (in terms of schema and not brand). The core of > the unix tool and the java class together are written in ca. 900 > lines of code (and 2-3kloc for the mapping editor). When writing > 900 lines of code by two people for half year the difference > between very sophisticated IDE or TextEdit is negligible. I would > even go as far as saying that all the hundreds of Eclipse vies, > configuration parameters, etc. is actually very hindering. On the > other hand, I could install Xcode from a disk image, open a project > and compile and run it without all the fuss. All these Eclipse > bells & whistles are completely useless to me (even Xcode is often > too complex :) and they slow me down. They disturb my flow of > thoughts... > > BTW, for all these years, all of us together for all our projects > wrote between 100 and 200 kloc. For comparison, a similar but not > truly robotic telescope project after 6 years and after 300kloc is > still not finished. > > What I claim here, is that the typical for so many developers over- > reliance on complex tools and techniques does not lead to higher > productivity, and at the end of the day the number of happy > customers counts (to me at least) more then the number of buttons > on the toolbar of my IDE. I think productivity is something very subjective. I can be very productive with some tools and techniques, and you can be very productive with other tools and techniques. I have seen persons who are really well organized with complex outlining and project managing software, and others that reached the same organization level with text files and stickies. So, I perfectly understand that you are less productive on Eclipse than on xCode. But... 1) Complex software takes time to learn, but generally that time pays off. Note that I said "complex" and not "crappy". Apple itself has very complex applications. Try to edit a movie in FCP without reading the manuals first. You can't. You simply can't. It's impossible. But after reading the necessary manuals and tutorials, man, that rocks. You edit like a pro, you use all those shortcus on the keyboard, and you get your work done much much faster than in a software like iMovie (assuming iMovie had the same capabilities than FCP, which is obviously not true). Eclipse is the same thing. Takes time to learn. But when I tell people I know who work (professionally) with xCode for writing Cocoa apps what Eclipse does for me, sometimes they ask me "damn, can I work with ObjC on that?". Eclipse is really really powerful, and in a very helpful way. I keep learning that all the stuff it has is there for a good reason. The GUI is not brilliant, but hey, you can't be perfect. Example: one day I wrote a class. Spent hours writing it. I hadn't committed it yet to SVN, and I mistakenly erased it. Oh boy. Asked Mike for help. Mike says: do this, click that. And what do you know, Eclipse records everything you do since you launched it. Just backtrack (ok not as fancy as time machine, but it gets the job done) and boom, my class is back. This makes me much more secure. If I screw up on a more granular level than my SVN commits, no problem. Just go to Eclipse history. Would it be more productive to re-think and re-write the whole class again? 2) As I said, it's subjective. I am much more productive in Eclipse than in xCode. xCode is a pain for me. All those compile- error-fix-compile-error-fix-compile-error-arrrrghhhh-fix cycles that do not exist in Eclipse (note that I didn't even talk about compile- RUN-fix, I'm still in the compile part! ;) ). Running EOGenerator manually. Handling the imports manually. Argh. Or, so you don't have to deal with classpaths, but you have to deal with imports. I *do* prefer classpaths. Really. By far. At least I don't have to deal with them every 5 minutes. > B. Esthetics. > In one word - Eclipse is harassment to even the most modest sense > of esthetics or beauty. It is a torture for the eyesight, it is > ugly, distasteful, painfully inconstant and repulsive! It might > contain countless smart and useful functions, but they a wrapped in > dirt. And this mess is not because it is complex (as some did > claimed). Only on that subject I could fill many pages, but I will > skip it. I will only ask you why are you all using Apple hardware > and Mac OS? Eclipse looks exactly as ugly on windows or Linux, yes? > If you do not care about esthetics, why are you buying Mac and not > one of these ugly cheap plastic bricks every computer shop around > the corner sells for $500? This is where I most disagree with you. Being a Next user and so, you know well that Macs weren't always "beautiful". They were gray boxes like everyone else (ok, a nicer gray tone, but gray). A Mac is a Mac because of how you use it. Because of what it allows you to do. Because HOW it allows you to do it. Not because it's beautiful (and I personally don't think the current aluminum PBs and MBPs are beautiful at all). If you think Mac is esthetics, that I think you missed the whole point! I don't care about esthetics. I really don't. Damn, sell me this things in some plastic box, and not this stupid aluminum one that can't even hold the paint, and if it falls in the ground, gets totally twisted and bent. Screw that. I don't buy a Mac because of that. I buy a mac because I don't want a fucking yellow think jumping around 1 minute after I install the OS (if you can call THAT an OS) saying "Hey hey, your computer is at risk, please help me!". Or recompiling the whole kernel just to (hopefully) make my 3G USB modem work. No. I buy a Mac because IT WORKS. Because it LETS ME WORK. It's that simple. Oh, it has nice shadows and spinning things and flying windows in space? Ok, fine. But take that away and I really won't mind (after all, I still like OS 9 GUI much more that OS X's). (Time for shameless plug: , section "The magic of the macintosh") Applying this to Eclipse: I don't care about how it looks. It actually doesn't look bad at all, in my opinion. It's not Cocoa- compliant, true. But you look at it and you know what a button is. You know what a tab is. You know what a pan is. Damn it, it works. As Chuck said, we are not prima-donnas. We don't need to be attracted by beautiful 3D-rendered icons. We can perfectly work with not-so- beautiful stuff. What's the problem? Yeah, it could be improved. But well, look at xCode. Does it look THAT good? I don't think so. It's just a window with code and a toolbar. Who cares? The only thing I really miss from xCode (only on Leopard) is xRay, aka, Instruments (what a crappy name, BTW). Not because it looks good, but because it looks simple and allows me to do profiling as no other tool does. But I think it's possible to use it with Java, so I'll try it when upgrading to Leopard. But that's important: I like xRay because it allows me to do something much faster and much more comprehensively (or better yet, allows me AT ALL) than Eclipse. But I feel exactly the opposite about xCode itself. > C. New WO Developers > In our team we have one guy that knows Eclipse inside-out and > defends it to some extend. Few days ago I asked him the following > question. Imagine a guy across the street reads about this > fantastic framework called WebObjects, how it makes you more > productive, etc. And he decides to be a WO developer. So he buys a > Mac (with Leopard on it), and tries to write and deploy a simple WO > application with a simple database of just one table. What is the > chance of success? After some thinking he looked at me and told me > - yes, you are right, the chance is close to zero. > Do I need to go further and explain what does this mean for the > future of WO? That's true, but it's only true because of one thing: no docs. That's the MAIN problem. If you didn't have docs and tutorials on xCode, the problem would be exactly the same. Can you create the classic Cocoa Currency Converter with no docs at all on xCode (assuming you know nothing about it, which is obviously not the case)? Well, I think I simply couldn't. If you have docs, good docs, official docs, than you have no problem. It can be Eclipse, it can be xCode, it can be pico and javac, who cares. You read, you learn, you code. This was a little more emotional than I expected, but oh well, it's what I think! :) Fell free to disagree! ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com From ian.joyner at sportstec.com Tue Nov 27 16:58:15 2007 From: ian.joyner at sportstec.com (Ian Joyner) Date: Tue Nov 27 16:58:35 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <9EB19B4E-13D6-4AF7-9B4F-84404C5D5E25@global-village.net> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <9EB19B4E-13D6-4AF7-9B4F-84404C5D5E25@global-village.net> Message-ID: I think one of the problems with IDEs like Eclipse is they have to make up for language problems. The example that comes to mind is packages and imports. This is project configuration information that programmers must maintain in the source code ? only environments like Eclipse tend to ease that burden ? a burden that should not be there in the first place. Actually, Java does a pretty good job of minimizing this stuff as compared to C and C++, which suffer because very little of this project configuration stuff is factored out of the language (that with very little abstraction away from low-level details and compiler implementation details) make Java look good. Ian On 28/11/2007, at 5:32 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Georg Tuparev wrote: >> On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote: >>> On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David BON wrote: >>> >>>> Following the link on the wocommunity Web site related to Apple >>>> support for WebObjects, I wonder what does the following sentence >>>> mean, now that the Apple development tools are deprecated? >>>> >>>> Support in key areas >>>> (...) >>>> WebObjects development tools >>>> (...) >>> >>> It means Eclipse is a much better development environment for Java >>> then XCode, so Apple bowed to the inevitable and now supports >>> WOLips as the development tool for WebObjects and is even >>> sponsoring it to some extent. >> >> It means Eclipse proponents are very vocal, dislike beauty and >> elegance, and think they could talk in the name of the entire WO >> community. > > > Georg, this becomes tiresome. I suspect that you would count me as > an Eclipse proponent :-) and I am fairly sure that that I don't > dislike beauty or elegance. I don't find Eclipse to be beautiful > nor elegant. I did not find Xcode to be either. But I do admit to > finding Eclipse to quite effective at developing WO applications. > That is a feeling that Xcode never evoked. > > But, really, you did not come here to whine, did you? I have no > doubt of the sincerity and depth of your dislike of Eclipse. And > you are not alone. I read a quote somewhere to the effect of "If > Eclipse is state of the art, then the art is in quite a state!". I > can't argue against that. But there is one thing that I don't know > that I would very much like to know. I don't know _why_ you think > Eclipse is ugly and inelegant. I am looking for specifics here. > I'd find it hard to believe that icon size and tab appearance are > what gnaws at your sensibilities. You are a deeper thinker than > that. You have stated several times how truly awful Eclipse is. > Yet, when asked why all I have seen you respond with is bugs. > > So I am inviting you now to be part of the solution. Share your > ideas with us. Please. Eclipse, as I am certain you know very > well, is an platform for creating development environments. It is > not a "set in stone" application wrapping make/jam/ant like Xcode > is. It is a wildly configurable and tweak-able platform. We have > the power and the desire to make it better. So please, take some > time to help us understand what is wrong and what would make it > right (or even better). It will make for a more usable product. > It probably still won't make you happy, but it might make you > happier. Look at Thomas. He came complaining of things missing. > Then he got specific. And those issues were addressed and the > Component Editor is much better for it. What we would like to see > are things like: > > 1. I don't like that I have to _______ when I want to _______. It > would be much better if I could just ______. > > 2. Having the _________ shown as ________ makes it very hard to > understand. If they were done as ________ or _____ that would be a > lot better. > > > Regards, > Chuck > > -- > > Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their > overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific > problems. > http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk > From ian.joyner at sportstec.com Tue Nov 27 17:11:48 2007 From: ian.joyner at sportstec.com (Ian Joyner) Date: Tue Nov 27 17:12:00 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> Message-ID: On 28/11/2007, at 3:58 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> Mind you, three years ago I talked to a couple Xcode people at >> WWDC and said "PLEASE ... Give me a plugin API. I will make cool >> things if you just open it." Apple has not been very good at making Xcode useful for other languages. I had another language going well in CodeWarrior, but ProjectBuilder then Xcode proved not only a moving target, but targets that never really provided you with what Mike was asking for. Hence I really have a love/hate relationship with Xcode, but I suppose I've got used to it over the years. Perhaps it is not so apparent now, but clearly the early Project Builder was just a thin veneer over a Unix development environment. Xcode ? like Unix ? still has zillions of configuration options and it is very difficult to work out what to set, even though I have used this for years. And it has been even worse for Java and WO development. >> But Apple doesn't see that as a priority, so you get what Apple >> decides to give you. They seem to be opening up to Ruby and Python in a big way, but they still seem to be very much in control of what languages are allowed on their platform. Mind you, you have to say that their business strategy has been focused and has worked. >> At this point, Apple decides to give you a subpar Java IDE >> (relative to the world of Java IDE's -- I'm not just talking >> Eclipse here -- pick any of them, IDEA, NetBeans, Eclipse, whatever >> -- they hands down beat Xcode in terms of Java productivity tools). >> This is one of the large impediments to making a nice WOB >> replacement ... I don't think you can make a nice enough end-user >> experience in pure SWT, but I don't think you can make a capable >> enough tool in pure Cocoa. > Ian From probert at os.ca Tue Nov 27 18:26:54 2007 From: probert at os.ca (Pascal Robert) Date: Tue Nov 27 18:27:33 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools In-Reply-To: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> References: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <85BB7975-65FC-41B2-B953-B26BCC4F0451@os.ca> > C. New WO Developers > In our team we have one guy that knows Eclipse inside-out and > defends it to some extend. Few days ago I asked him the following > question. Imagine a guy across the street reads about this fantastic > framework called WebObjects, how it makes you more productive, etc. > And he decides to be a WO developer. So he buys a Mac (with Leopard > on it), and tries to write and deploy a simple WO application with a > simple database of just one table. What is the chance of success? > After some thinking he looked at me and told me - yes, you are > right, the chance is close to zero. > Do I need to go further and explain what does this mean for the > future of WO? For that point, I fully agree with you. The WO frameworks should be installed by default when someone install the Developer Tools. But like Miguel (the guy who can't stand the cold :-) said, we need documentation, both from Apple and from the community. From probert at os.ca Tue Nov 27 17:43:08 2007 From: probert at os.ca (Pascal Robert) Date: Tue Nov 27 18:48:53 2007 Subject: Can I run Eclipse + WOLips using the Flex Builder installation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A6F6EE8-DB8B-4AE7-98B1-5DFBB11630BA@os.ca> Le 07-11-27 ? 19:37, Wassim Jabi a ?crit : > I am contemplating finally going back to WebObjects development > using Eclipse and WOLips (I still have running WO 4.x applications > that I maintain using Yellowbox tools on Windows) (the discussions > have scared the heck out of me!).. but I already have Adobe Flex > Builder 2.0 and that is of course built on top of Eclipse.. Can I > use that? If so, anyone with experience in using the underlying > Eclipse environment in Flex Builder for WebObjects development? Or > do I have to download a new and different installation? I think it's better to use the general Eclipse IDE and installing both the Flex plugin and WOLips than trying to install WOLips into Flex Builder. > > I would also be interested in any comparison of WebObjects to Flex + > PHP + MySQL. Are you using AMF3PHP ? From probert at os.ca Tue Nov 27 17:57:53 2007 From: probert at os.ca (Pascal Robert) Date: Tue Nov 27 19:01:49 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools In-Reply-To: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> References: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <0D9D39AB-EEB3-42EF-B9F2-0B75CD41815D@os.ca> > C. New WO Developers > In our team we have one guy that knows Eclipse inside-out and > defends it to some extend. Few days ago I asked him the following > question. Imagine a guy across the street reads about this fantastic > framework called WebObjects, how it makes you more productive, etc. > And he decides to be a WO developer. So he buys a Mac (with Leopard > on it), and tries to write and deploy a simple WO application with a > simple database of just one table. What is the chance of success? > After some thinking he looked at me and told me - yes, you are > right, the chance is close to zero. > Do I need to go further and explain what does this mean for the > future of WO? For that point, I fully agree with you. The WO frameworks should be installed by default when someone install the Developer Tools. But like Miguel (the guy who can't stand the cold :-) said, we need documentation, both from Apple and from the community. From mschrag at mdimension.com Tue Nov 27 23:12:03 2007 From: mschrag at mdimension.com (Mike Schrag) Date: Tue Nov 27 23:12:11 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools In-Reply-To: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> References: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <9638276B-50F0-4CD6-8965-4EDCD4ADCD1E@mdimension.com> > A. Productivity > For many people productivity is measured in terms lines of working > code per day, or speed of refactoring. We measured productivity in > work done for the last three years I agree ... I think any quality development shop measures productivity in results and not kloc, and any quality development shop thinks in terms of reusable frameworks and not repeating yourself. I think your comments like ".. and then write a few hundred lines of code and we're done" are a little misleading and your measurement of line counts must be leaving out shared frameworks or something (heck, Wonder's Ajax framework alone is like 9kloc and it's not like there's a lot of fluff in there), but that's beside the point. > I would even go as far as saying that all the hundreds of Eclipse > vies, configuration parameters, etc. is actually very hindering. On > the other hand, I could install Xcode from a disk image, open a > project and compile and run it without all the fuss. All these > Eclipse bells & whistles are completely useless to me (even Xcode is > often too complex :) and they slow me down. They disturb my flow of > thoughts... And this leads to my point in my previous email about this being relative. For YOU Xcode is "just open my project compile and run", but this is not at ALL the experience I have with Xcode. The experience I have with Xcode is "open a project ... try to compile ... how does classpath with in this #@$ thing ... how do i configure this deployment build ... " etc. I find it to be a completely painful experience. You find Xcode to be a natural workflow because you've been working with Project Builder et al for ten years and it fits your mental image of the workflow. I find them all to be infuriating because they're completely dissonant with mine. And I'm not religious about my tools either -- all I care about is whether the tools I'm using make me a better developer or not. At the moment, Eclipse is the one that I'm most happy with, but the second something else comes along that brings a substantially better experience and power, I'm gone*. > What I claim here, is that the typical for so many developers over- > reliance on complex tools and techniques does not lead to higher > productivity, and at the end of the day the number of happy > customers counts (to me at least) more then the number of buttons on > the toolbar of my IDE. I agree. This is a large part of why we contribute to Wonder as well -- I don't believe that everyone should have to resolve the same problems. Multicast EOF stack synchronization is really hard to get right. Why shouldn't everyone else be able to just turn it on and benefit from the experiences of people who came before them? Why should EOF developers have to care about locking? I don't think they should. The frameworks and tools should make solving common problems easy. However, I think you're glossing over realities of software development in the description of your world. Refactoring, for instance, is a real topic. As much as you think think think beforehand, invariably three months in, when you have a better understanding of the problem, or when requirements change, you're going to have to make changes to your system and your designs. Capable tools dramatically improve problems like this and it allow developers to be much more agile (in the traditional sense, not necessarily the fancy-hot-and-new-methodology sense). Whereas you find that the tools disturb your thoughts, I find that stupid problems that computers should be able to do for me disturb my thoughts. I want to be able to focus on the development problems I'm working on and I want to be able to improve my code effectively. Before Eclipse came along, refactoring code was just not even a tool in my toolbox, because the bang for the buck just isn't there. With good tools, it opens up an entirely new set of capabilities to developers. Especially for your so-called "amateur programmers," who are even MORE likely to make bad decisions up-front. To be able to give them the confidence to rethink and explore is powerful. And with features like local change tracking, I have a huge amount of confidence in exploring the problem space, because my tools are backing me up. My tools provide me _excellent_ integration with my version control system, which is a major workflow in any multi-person development shop (and should be even in single person shops, just with less merging and conflict resolution). These aren't just "fancy gadgets" -- they're enormous benefits and address annoyances that constantly annoy developers. It's like you said -- I don't want to disturb my thoughts -- I want to find the shortest path between thinking and running software, and good tools grease that process. > B. Esthetics. > In one word - Eclipse is harassment to even the most modest sense of > esthetics or beauty. It is a torture for the eyesight, it is ugly, > distasteful, painfully inconstant and repulsive! It might contain > countless smart and useful functions, but they a wrapped in dirt. > And this mess is not because it is complex (as some did claimed). > Only on that subject I could fill many pages, but I will skip it. I > will only ask you why are you all using Apple hardware and Mac OS? > Eclipse looks exactly as ugly on windows or Linux, yes? If you do > not care about esthetics, why are you buying Mac and not one of > these ugly cheap plastic bricks every computer shop around the > corner sells for $500? I make choices of technology based on several criteria, of which aesthetics is certainly one, but overall it's "does this make it easier for me to do what I want to do." For me, Mac OS X absolutely does. Certainly a large component of this is user interface design, but also as a DEVELOPER on Mac OS X, I am very much compelled by the frameworks that OS X has to offer that let me think about the problems in my problem domain rather than a bunch of junk that I shouldn't have to care about. And like Chuck said, give me actionable items here ... When I look at Eclipse, it's not like I think it's a thing of beauty. I said as much earlier that if it were a Cocoa app, sure, it would be nicer and would probably look nicer. But when it comes down to it, we're talking a fairly small distance ... * It has 16x16 toolbar icons instead of Apple's HIG 32x32 (Entity Modeler.app uses the proper sizes, though I'm still working on getting the toolbar to lay them out better, but hell, until Leopard there wasn't even a proper reusable toolbar view anyway) * It has ugly ass tabs, but in their defense, there really IS no real tab standard on OS X that also supports a close option (the aqua-ish tabs are very limited in their capabilities). If you look at Apple apps, they all do this in a different way. Safari's definitely look nicer and would be worth ripping off. * I think it goes toolbar crazy. I actually turn off almost all my toolbar icons. Also, I don't the vast majority of view toolbars -- I find them to mostly just crowd the view for features that are generally better executed as hotkeys anyway. * I don't like the visual style of their icons -- I think they're sort of clowny, but not everyone has Apple icon designers on staff * Any place that uses emulated widgets pisses me off. Cell editors is a big one. But I have spent a lot of time in Entity Modeler tweaking these emulated widgets to behave much more like OS X native equivalents, I have several open bugs with SWT on them, and several that I have straight up just fixed in SWT. * It's MDI, which is definitely un-macish, but I find that I often context switch fully into Eclipse anyway. And honestly, every time I use Xcode, the thing that pisses me off constantly is that I end up with 5000 windows open and I can't find anything. Eclipse just addresses this in a different way -- it falls down also, just in different ways on this one. I like that Eclipse can be setup with automatic tab management so I can tell it to only keep the last x editors open so it automatically cleans up after me -- again, just one less administrative task to think about while I work * Little stuff like inconsistent triple-click support and double/ triple-click-drag-selection, but this is being actively worked on anyway. ... Those are the things I can think of offhand? But man, most of these are pretty darn picky and most are also SOLVABLE in a relatively straightforward way (whether the SWT team would accept the patches is another issue). I honestly think that if tabs looked like Safari's, toolbar icon resolution was jumped up, and the default toolbar set was pared down, all the people who think Eclipse is "hideous" would suddenly not think so quite as much. But I'm sure there are lots of other things floating around ... Fundamentally SWT is a middle-man, and some widget have to be emulated, so it's never going to be perfect parity with the underlying OS. > Pierre, if you are reading, why don't you make the following > experiment - open one project in Eclipse, go to Steve, tell him that > Apple customers have to cope with this and watch his face :) And yes, if Apple can deliver an environment that can solve the problems that Eclipse solves AND make it look beautiful, I would switch in a second. But Xcode doesn't even come close. > C. New WO Developers > In our team we have one guy that knows Eclipse inside-out and > defends it to some extend. Few days ago I asked him the following > question. Imagine a guy across the street reads about this fantastic > framework called WebObjects, how it makes you more productive, etc. > And he decides to be a WO developer. So he buys a Mac (with Leopard > on it), and tries to write and deploy a simple WO application with a > simple database of just one table. What is the chance of success? > After some thinking he looked at me and told me - yes, you are > right, the chance is close to zero. > Do I need to go further and explain what does this mean for the > future of WO? Well, the "deploy" part of the story is mostly unchanged and has always sucked for WO -- I think it's overly complicated and lacks good tool support. As far as the "develop" part, I think that this is mostly solved with a single screencast or a tutorial that is updated with all the new screens. It's not like with Xcode and WOB you just osmosed the knowledge of how to build a WO app when you launched it. When I started WO, I had no idea how to use EOModeler, and I got f***ed by MANY times with its stupid 10 year old bugs. WOB was the same for me ... People who talk about how intuitive it is are only saying that because they went through the tutorials about how to use it. It's not really all that intuitive. If you skip the tutorials, it's pretty incomprehensible (I know this because I personally skipped its tutorials and tried to just use it and it's pretty annoying). It also had some AWESOME features like when it just stopped working because I selfishly decided to not use .* imports in my Java files. As I see it, the future of WO is far brighter than it was 2 years ago, which was that WO was stale. All the other folks were doing slick Ajax web applications using modern web site construction techniques, and we have a bunch of half-assed tools that don't support things like CSS, and a framework where Ajax requires either dropping a huge amount the framework's power (i.e. DirectAction-only-time .. yay!) or writing some really complicated code. The future of WO now is that we have some of the best tools around for developing web applications, and they're getting better every day (OK ... some days they get worse, but the next build they get better again :) ). I think you're getting hung up on what I see as transient problems. The state of the union _at this moment_ is in flux, with Leopard and a new WO release after years of quiet, but the trend line is onward and upward as far as I can see. > Final word > Day after day I go to the office and work on extremely complex > software systems that handle inter-banking transactions, mobile > phone calls, or control of some very complex instruments. This pays > the bills. In the evening I go home, have few hours with my family, > and after every one is sleeping I start working on yet another > complex software system that models the macro-molecular chemical > pathways in our bodies (my goal is to understand how muscular > dystrophies work, and hopefully help to find a cure... it is a hobby > for me). In all these activities I have to think about two-phase > commits, satellite links, chromatic aberration, or protein folding. > I do not want to think about classpaths, or if I installed the > version of WOLips from this afternoon. > For me and countless other people the process of software > development is just the way to achieve our goals and not the goal > itself. We are professional economist, physicist, chemist, or > biologist first, and software developers second. IDE is a tool, and > as every tool in the hands of an amateur it must be first and > foremost simple! Therefore many of us hate Eclipse. And believe it > or not, people like me (amateur developers) are the majority of the > users (exactly as there are more weekend photographers using iPhoto > then professionals using Photoshop). Again, I agree. It's only because I happen to actually develop the tools also that I have a different perspective. But the non-tools- developer side of me (which is 70% of my time -- 30% of my recorded time is open source tools and framework development) thinks tools are a facilitator. I write applications that solve business problems. We also have a remote-controlled robotic system app (microscope, not telescope) built on WO, WO software for police forensics, content management, task management, accounting, group organization and communication. Like I said at the top, quality software developers care about results, and those results are delivering applications that customers are happy with. You should not have to care about classpaths (well, this one you can't REALLY avoid, and you aren't avoiding it in any tool) and WOLips versions. And if you were on Tiger, you could be on Eclipse 3.2 and WOLips stable with not-the- fanciest-tools-and-features like hundreds of other users who obviously don't care about versions because WOLips stable hasn't change in something like 3 months. Eclipse 3.3/Leopard/5.4 will stabilize, but it will take some time to do so. The biggest problem I have is that what you see as horrible problems, I see as relatively minor bugs. This is more of a PR problem than it is a technical one. WOLips is open source, so you see the sausage being made. It means that everyone sees the tantalizing new features and yearn to upgrade to get them even though they may not be production-ready. WOLips has historically not been very good at managing stable vs nightly releases. This is a procedural issue that we need to deal with so that weekend photographers can use the tools reliably. We want the same things, Georg. You bring large apps and experience developers to the table, and with those, you bring the the ability to provide us with (at the very least) recommendations on how to make your lives easier -- and by proxy, everyone else. This is why I am excited that the iTunes guys are switching over to Entity Modeler.app. They bring a scale of application that most people don't have, and the changes necessary to support them (as well as the funding they put up to do so) will make the apps better for all of us. Aside from all of this discussion, it's unlikely Apple is going to change their collective mind on the deprecation issue any time soon. Given that, and given that we've looked at a lot of the alternatives to WO and they mostly all suck pretty badly, I don't think you're leaving us any time soon to go to the competition, so we might as well find a way to make this a positive relationship. ms From arroz at guiamac.com Tue Nov 27 23:49:12 2007 From: arroz at guiamac.com (Miguel Arroz) Date: Tue Nov 27 23:49:22 2007 Subject: My views on Eclipse and Apple's decision on discontinuing all WO Dev tools In-Reply-To: <9638276B-50F0-4CD6-8965-4EDCD4ADCD1E@mdimension.com> References: <7D9BF12B-054E-41EA-969F-787E9D3B65AE@mac.com> <9638276B-50F0-4CD6-8965-4EDCD4ADCD1E@mdimension.com> Message-ID: <9342117E-E0CE-465C-908C-52CD5699B924@guiamac.com> Hi! Try 3 hours later! Yours Miguel (I also hate waking up early) Arroz On 2007/11/28, at 07:12, Mike Schrag wrote: > As much as you think think think beforehand, invariably three > months in, when you have a better understanding of the problem, or > when requirements change, you're going to have to make changes to > your system and your designs. Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com From pb at seat-1.com Wed Nov 28 01:48:01 2007 From: pb at seat-1.com (Pirmin Braun) Date: Wed Nov 28 01:53:10 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> Message-ID: <474D3951.7060707@seat-1.com> Still so much going on with WO? This is great to hear! We're in business with WO since 1997, using now GNUStep. Our product is IntarS, a complete OpenSource GPL business software suite for small to medium sized companies. We didn't go for Java, so won't need Eclipse. Instead we put our own scripting language on top of an ObjC Framework which is a Universal Business Application. So we don't need Xcode either. All developement of business logic is done inside the np++ Texteditor (or TextMate or Emacs). A medium sized project consists of about 500 scripts with 27 Kloc, half of them comments. Whipping up a new customer application starts by chosing the closest template project (after having understood the customer's requirements) and merge the data-repository and scripts from other projects. This is typically done in one day, giving a fully featured, good looking, keyboard enabled, highly customizable, high performance application. In no way comparable to a CRUD/D2W application. Btw. it does even configure apache2 itself. Imagine a guy across the street who has some PHP/Ruby/Perl experience and wants to build an inhouse database-centric application. He would fail with plain WO but succeed whith this approach. I think, this is the way to attract new developers and save them from PHP, JSP, BEA etc. Btw. it is available as virtual appliance. -- mit freundlichen Gruessen/best regards Pirmin Braun +49 2642409 251 - Sandweg 13 - 53424 Remagen +49 0163-6290887 - skype:pirminb http://www.seat-1.com http://www.busw.de pb@seat-1.de pb@busw.de seat-1 Software GmbH - Am Hofbr?uhaus 1 - 96540 Coburg Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht Coburg HRB3136 ein Unternehmen der MAX21 Gruppe - http://www.max21.de From pb at seat-1.com Wed Nov 28 03:15:55 2007 From: pb at seat-1.com (Pirmin Braun) Date: Wed Nov 28 03:16:39 2007 Subject: WebObject Support on the development tools In-Reply-To: <474D3951.7060707@seat-1.com> References: <96ADD22F-4679-4888-B0B0-F3F5AC6E7072@mac.com> <5DCE941E-DB12-4467-889C-99A08E641299@mdimension.com> <474D3951.7060707@seat-1.com> Message-ID: <474D4DEB.3060206@seat-1.com> Pirmin Braun schrieb: > with 27 Kloc, half of them comments. Whipping up a new customer not quite right: 20 Kloc are comments, just 7000 loc are actually statements; 1/4 code, 3/4 inline-documentation; the programming-by-example approach is our way to get new employees and partners productive *fast* -- mit freundlichen Gruessen/best regards Pirmin Braun +49 2642409 251 - Sandweg 13 - 53424 Remagen +49 0163-6290887 - skype:pirminb http://www.seat-1.com http://www.busw.de pb@seat-1.de pb@busw.de seat-1 Software GmbH - Am Hofbr?uhaus 1 - 96540 Coburg Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht Coburg HRB3136 ein Unternehmen der MAX21 Gruppe - http://www.max21.de