[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: E4 / SWT 4.0

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mauro,

Comments below.


Mauro Molinari wrote:
> Hi Ed!
>
> Ed Merks ha scritto:
> > Such speedy service! :-P  I've often noticed that if I deal with 
> > something in a speedy way, that the speed in and of itself will be 
> > judged as either good or bad depending on whether the person liked 
> > what I did.  If they don't like it, they consider the speed to make 
> > the bad result even more offensive; if they did like it, they 
> > consider the speed to make the good result even better.  So ask 
> > yourself, would you have felt better if it took and hour, a day or a 
> > week?  If not, then it's not the ten minutes that bothered you but 
> > the wontfix.
>
> It was the combination of the "wontfix" and the ten minutes-only spent 
> to get to that conclusion, because there were "no plans", without 
> giving too much attention to what my request really was about.
I know what you mean.  It makes it seem ill considered.
> > I wonder if at the time you wrote your report if you had a good sense 
> > of exactly how big the wish list already was?  I know how frustrating 
> > it is to watch a wish list grow faster than one can ever hope to 
> > shrink it...
>
> I know, this is the key point and the challenge. But the "throw away 
> that list and move on other directions" shouldn't be the right 
> solution to the problem, IMHO.
No, I tend to do that only with things that I things are a poor idea 
that I'd not want even if it were contributed...
> > Many people will complain that Eclipse is too complex.  The solution 
> > is always to simplify it by adding more features and capabilities.  
> > But of course having more ways to do something, also generates even 
> > more complexity...  Perhaps a major aspect of the problem with huge 
> > web application development is the underlying framework, JEE;  it's 
> > difficult to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.   OSGi is 
> > certainly a far simpler container model.  I manage a workspace that 
> > normally consists of  almost 200 projects with many millions of lines 
> > of code.  OSGi's classpath management makes classpath setup a 
> > non-issue and the applications always just run...
>
> So, don't you think that if e4 could succeed to manage this complexity 
> effectively it would be a very good result, without actually the need 
> to jump to a Web 2.0 infrastructure or any other revolutionary new 
> feature like that? :-)
I'm actually personally fine with the way 3.x is on this front.  There 
are things I don't use yet that I could, like working sets...  I see 
complexity as a one way trip in general, because it's always solved by 
adding more things...
> Yes, I know you already answered to this question: "there will be 
> Eclipse 3.5, 3.6, etc."... but if you say that the resources are 
> lacking for e4, will they be enough to carry on both e4 and e3.x?
The resources are simply lacking.  Folks hope to stimulate renewed 
interest to get involved.  I think it's actually working.  It's sure 
generated lots of interesting discussions!
> > That's just 3.5 or 3.6.  It's relative small incremental improvements 
> > on what we have today.  The 3.x effort will continue and if the 
> > community gets involved with that as well, we should expect to see a 
> > solid and improved 3.x stream as well as an exciting innovative 4.x 
> > stream to lead us into a long and bright future.
>
> They are those "small incremental improvements" that frightens me. I 
> mean, there are some improvements that may seem "small" to an end user 
> point of view (although VERY valuable), but that are actually hard to 
> implement. I think they are something in the middle between the 
> "ordinary maintenance" and the "revolutionary new development"... I 
> don't think some requested enhancements will ever go into 3.x if e4 is 
> released without them... And meanwhile, the effort spent on e4 could 
> have been spent to implement those enhancements...
Yes.  Different people will make different trade offs because of a 
different sense of priorities.
> > I often tell people, we don't have a shortage of good ideas, we have 
> > a shortage of people who can turn the good ideas into actions and 
> > results.  It's incredibly frustrating when good ideas can't be turned 
> > into actions.  The more good ideas there are, the more frustrating it 
> > is.   So yes, we appreciate your good ideas and we are frustrated by 
> > them.  We even have our own good ideas that frustrate us...
>
> I have no doubts about that! :-)
>
> > > Sorry for the long post.
> > It was a good one.  I hope nothing I've said makes you feel bad.  I know 
>
> Not at all, don't worry! :-)
> My post wasn't about complaining, but to express my point of view on 
> this topic.
Yes, and it was well expressed.
> Cheers,
> Mauro.