[news.eclipse.technology] Re: Eclipse just seems wrong

[Tom <tcrosman@xxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps RTFM as all the lemmings can get Eclipse to work correctly.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:16:11 -0500, "Gregg Wonderly" <gergg@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"Brian Matzon" <brian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:bjmh5k$qfr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Problem is, that what you need of eclipse, is much less than it
>> provides. Eclipse is a full (well, almost) featured Integrated
>> Development Environment.
>
>So why can't it just compile my files correctly?  It seems like getting that
>part right would be easy for the developers.  But, I fear that the eclipse
>developers just don't understand how fundamental staying out of the way of
>simple operations is to good GUI design.
>
>> It's not just like a fancy editor, which we're
>> many that think KAWA is. I like eclipse, I have no problems with its
>> structure - nor do my coworkers. However that doesn't mean that eclipse
>> fits everybody! If you don't like the "features" of eclipse, and want
>> something simpler, then you obviously have to use a "simpler" product,
>> instead of stripping it, or adding "weird" options that < 5% of the
>> users need.
>
>The primary issue is that it won't compile my source files.  This is
>fundamental to me understanding whether I can get any benefits out of the
>other features.  KAWA has a vary simple extensibility mechanism using simple
>command lines.  One of the primary simplifications is that if a file is
>readonly and I have defined a command called 'checkout', then when I attempt
>to make edits to such a readonly file, kawa asks me if I want to check the
>file out.  If I have no check out command, KAWA asks me if I want to remove
>the readonly status.  Thus, when I am working offline without network
>connectivity to my Perforce server, I can rename 'checkout' to 'p4checkout',
>and KAWA asks me if I want to remove the readonly status.  That's a simple
>way to handle that issue.  I can put these commands into the context menu
>for files, or the project tree.  Thus, I can checkout, submit, addsource etc
>quite easily without crafting 20lines of XML.
>
>> FWIW, 95% (yes, guessing) of all java developers have their source files
>> in a package hierarchy! Those that don't have some technical, often
>> preprocessing, reason for not having it in a package hierarchy.
>
>Apparently there are a lot of people who have been listening to those that
>think this is some kind of requirement.  If the package structure is so
>friendly and necessary, then why does the default javadoc output include a
>list of classes by name so that you don't have to remember the package too?
>
>Surely we're not all a bunch of lemmings following each other toward the
>cliff?
>