Eclipse

[Jennifer Ashley Kuiper]

I want to pay my deepest regrets with Borland moving JBuilder towards
Eclipse. It takes me back for about 12 years. I just started programming in
a high level database like language called Clipper. When Nantucked -the
vendor of Clipper- "decompiled", as they called it themselves, the product
was acquired by CA. In 1993 CA produced a windows version of Clipper, called
Visual Objects. I read books, read them again and again, tried to work with
Visual Objects, but I just could not get a running start. I moved onward to
Delphi, as did many of my Clipper co developers.

Regarding Eclipse I have a bit of a déjà vu thing here. I don't like the
interface, I don't like the modules structure, I don't like IBM, (that is of
course beside the point, even though they are laying off so many people) I
just don't like Eclipse. I am a loyal Borland customer and as an individual
developer, I am perfectly willing to pay the $2000,00 or so for each
JBuilder upgrade, as I have done since version 1.0(1). But if JBuilder is
going to interact with Eclipse, I am a clean house here. Even if whatever
Borland is going to produce on the subject of JBuilder would be
significantly cheaper than the 2000 bucks, I still won't even look at it,
simply because I don't like Eclipse. I think in that case I'll move on to
NetBeans.

In my humble opinion, the loss of revenue concerning JBuilder is caused by
the fact that the Foundation version is so richly equipped. Many developers
are still using JBuilder 5 mind you, and compared to that one JBuilder 2005
Foundation in many ways has a much richer feature set, plus a great
interface and not to forget editor. The topic of refactoring is fully
available in the Foundation version, which is going to be introduced for the
first time in Visual Studio 2005, now only in Beta 2. To top it of, since
JBuilderX the Foundation edition can be used commercially, so why buy a
Developer or even an Enterprise version?

I hope that it's not too late yet and that Borland at least will consider 2
versions of JBuilder, on of which will continue the traditional PrimeTime
version.

Just my $0.02.

Jennifer

[Martin Novak]

Regarding Eclipse I have a bit of a déjŕ vu thing here. I don't like the
interface, I don't like the modules structure, I don't like IBM, (that is of
course beside the point, even though they are laying off so many people) I
just don't like Eclipse. I am a loyal Borland customer and as an individual
developer, I am perfectly willing to pay the $2000,00 or so for each
JBuilder upgrade, as I have done since version 1.0(1). But if JBuilder is
going to interact with Eclipse, I am a clean house here. Even if whatever
Borland is going to produce on the subject of JBuilder would be
significantly cheaper than the 2000 bucks, I still won't even look at it,
simply because I don't like Eclipse. I think in that case I'll move on to
NetBeans.

I agree. But don't look at Netbeans, look at intellij idea. The deal
with eclipse is that they are copying everithing from everywhere. Now
it's quite good copy of idea. The lack of their own ideas is really sad.
For example eclipse team released last week (or two weeks ago) plugin
heap monitor which is exact copy of the thing in idea's status bar. My
opinion is that idea has the best editor (and eclipse also because it's
exact copy) - way, way better than jbuilder. Then they have some addon
tools like forms designer, j2ee tools, etc.. (eclipse doesn't have
anything)...

The deal with ibm is that they are doing so overcomplicated software i
haven't seen at any other copmany before. I'm currently developing
plugin for eclipse, and i decided to make new ide, not the plugin. So
I'm cutting down all the menus, dialogs to only usable features...

Martin

[Yu Haibo]

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
I want to pay my deepest regrets with Borland moving JBuilder towards
Eclipse. It takes me back for about 12 years. I just started programming in
a high level database like language called Clipper. When Nantucked -the
vendor of Clipper- "decompiled", as they called it themselves, the product
was acquired by CA. In 1993 CA produced a windows version of Clipper, called
Visual Objects. I read books, read them again and again, tried to work with
Visual Objects, but I just could not get a running start. I moved onward to
Delphi, as did many of my Clipper co developers.
Regarding Eclipse I have a bit of a déj?vu thing here. I don't like the
interface, I don't like the modules structure, I don't like IBM, (that is of
course beside the point, even though they are laying off so many people)
I
just don't like Eclipse. I am a loyal Borland customer and as an individual
developer, I am perfectly willing to pay the $2000,00 or so for each
JBuilder upgrade, as I have done since version 1.0(1). But if JBuilder is
going to interact with Eclipse, I am a clean house here. Even if whatever
Borland is going to produce on the subject of JBuilder would be
significantly cheaper than the 2000 bucks, I still won't even look at it,
simply because I don't like Eclipse. I think in that case I'll move on to
NetBeans.

i think move JBuilder to Eclipse will kill Jbuilder.there is a IBM
WASD,aother Borland "WASD" is not need;

i will not select eclipse version Jbuilder, i need different.

I think primetime is a good framework.make a plugin is easy. Borland should
opensource primetime,and let all java product base on primetime

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
In my humble opinion, the loss of revenue concerning JBuilder is caused by
the fact that the Foundation version is so richly equipped. Many developers
are still using JBuilder 5 mind you, and compared to that one JBuilder 2005
Foundation in many ways has a much richer feature set, plus a great
interface and not to forget editor. The topic of refactoring is fully
available in the Foundation version, which is going to be introduced for the
first time in Visual Studio 2005, now only in Beta 2. To top it of, since
JBuilderX the Foundation edition can be used commercially, so why buy a
Developer or even an Enterprise version?
I hope that it's not too late yet and that Borland at least will consider 2
versions of JBuilder, on of which will continue the traditional PrimeTime
version.

agree!

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
Just my $0.02.
Jennifer

[Paul Nichols (TeamB)]

"Jennifer Ashley Kuiper" <***@maindevelopment.com> wrote in message news:427cadea$***@newsgroups.borland.com...

If Borland is to use Eclipse as the base for future versions of JB, I just
hope they heavily modify the IDE. I agree, I do not like Eclipse, the IDE
that is.

[Dirk Schnelle]

Post by Paul Nichols (TeamB)
I agree, I do not like Eclipse, the IDE
that is.

Yes, that's why I use JBuilder and not eclipse ;-)

To be serious: I get a headache when I think about this future of JBuilder.

/dirk

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
I want to pay my deepest regrets with Borland moving JBuilder towards
Eclipse. It takes me back for about 12 years. I just started programming in
a high level database like language called Clipper. When Nantucked -the
vendor of Clipper- "decompiled", as they called it themselves, the product
was acquired by CA. In 1993 CA produced a windows version of Clipper, called
Visual Objects. I read books, read them again and again, tried to work with
Visual Objects, but I just could not get a running start. I moved onward to
Delphi, as did many of my Clipper co developers.

And some I know... I've not used Clipper but your story sounds very familiar.

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
Regarding Eclipse I have a bit of a déjà vu thing here. I don't like the
interface, I don't like the modules structure, I don't like IBM, (that is of
course beside the point, even though they are laying off so many people) I
just don't like Eclipse. I am a loyal Borland customer and as an individual
developer, I am perfectly willing to pay the $2000,00 or so for each
JBuilder upgrade, as I have done since version 1.0(1). But if JBuilder is
going to interact with Eclipse, I am a clean house here. Even if whatever
Borland is going to produce on the subject of JBuilder would be
significantly cheaper than the 2000 bucks, I still won't even look at it,
simply because I don't like Eclipse. I think in that case I'll move on to
NetBeans.

Same here. While I've not purchased all versions and never the Enterprise version I've been a loyal Borland customer for the past 15 years.
But this thing would drive me away and towards Netbeans which seems quite popular with its users much as JBuilder is loved by those who love it.

Post by Jennifer Ashley Kuiper
In my humble opinion, the loss of revenue concerning JBuilder is caused by
the fact that the Foundation version is so richly equipped. Many developers
are still using JBuilder 5 mind you, and compared to that one JBuilder 2005
Foundation in many ways has a much richer feature set, plus a great
interface and not to forget editor. The topic of refactoring is fully
available in the Foundation version, which is going to be introduced for the
first time in Visual Studio 2005, now only in Beta 2. To top it of, since
JBuilderX the Foundation edition can be used commercially, so why buy a
Developer or even an Enterprise version?

That could very well be the case. But in (probably) larger part it's due to companies not asking the developers what they think will suit them best.
They see Eclipse and Netbeans available for free and immediately cut the budget for development tools to zero.
I've seen it many times, and in fact I've resorted to buying my own tools because I can't get even the few hundred Euro for JB Developer approved.

In such an environment I fear there may soon be no market for commercial tooling at all, leading to a monopolisation of the development tool market to a few free tools.
As both these are sponsored by corporations who do so only/mainly because they sell spinoff products whose market is destroyed by those free versions I can only see those free versions disappear over time as a result of their own success.

This would then ultimately lead to the demise of not just JBuilder (with the inevitable failure of the Eclipse based version as it has to compete with the free Eclipse) but also Eclipse itself...

[Kevin Berry]

Read this:

http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33055,00.html

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by Kevin Berry
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33055,00.html

This is NOT about the open sourcing of (parts of) the JBuilder code but about the looming abandonment of JBuilder as a standalone product and turning it into a set of Eclipse plugins which seems to be in the works given the constant mention of integrating JBuilder with Eclipse.

[Buch]

Market is cruel. One who fails to adapt can blame only himself.
Borland received fair share of warnings on this newsgroups, especially
Delphi ones.

What IBM did with Eclipse is ingenious. It completely redefined, on large
scale, how major development tools
will be developed. First, make it open source, use volunteers to find/fix
bugs, and have commercial version.
They also made great publicity for IBM. They retained control, even when
they gave development to commnity ...
I can see Sun is copying, with Netbeans, and Studio Creator. If Sun had not
copied them, they would have option in few years
to drop Eclipse, destroy java dev tools, and then sell WSAD ... but that is
not going to happen. Instead, we will have rivalry between
Eclipse and NetBeans, and WSAD vs Studio.
(And, just to add. Microsoft did that long ago with downpriced dev tools,
supporting sales of Windows And Office.)
I find this good - they will copy from each other, and improove.
(Somebody mentioned copying, but that is how software industry works -
Jbuilder copied Visual basic concept, did it not, and nobody finds that
objectionable)
(and VB copied something, I cant remember now what was it)
So, all these Foundations, OpenTools whatever was just late and unadequate
reactions.
Foundation is not open source, like they are its counterparts, and
commercial version are overpriced for quite some time.
Not long ago only real benefit of JBuilder was visual UI designer, and that
advantage is gone.
Yes, JBuilder has more options, but that will also not last.
So, moving advanced features to Eclipse makes some sense, as short term
move.
For the long run ... well. Yo cant compete with somebody who gives dev tool
as added value to his other products, and thats it.

I understand you're angry. Your favourite tool, for which you gave fat
money, is going down ... again.
I know the feeling, I also went through Clipper - Delphi - Java path.
But, you can't expect thing to last, and you are in bussines that requires
constant learning and adaptation.
For instance, I find Eclipse cool. (eh, I'm jumping to cover, I see bullets
coming :))
I think, if you calm yourself, you will also find it cool, rofl :)
As for loyalty, that is nice, but I would like to remind you that you are
not Salvation Army (charity organisation).
And, again, loyalty is nice, but I don't like when I'm having feeling that
loyalty is artificially induced.
You should be loyal to yourself. That means you keep options for yourself,
period.

Given the past experience, I found that I can keep options for myself by
using generative programing.
I do mostly database applications, so I developed dictionary structure.
Then, it is matter of routine to make generator that makes application out
of
dictionary. Since all "new" things (Java, C#, Delphi) have enough simmilar
features, it is easier that you would probably think.
Once you make generator, you are familiar with algorithms required to
produce e.g. user interface, so it is, again, just a matter of recoding.
If new need arises, you can adapt generator, or use escape.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by Buch
I can see Sun is copying, with Netbeans, and Studio Creator. If Sun had not

Wrong. Sun was there first when they bought out Netbeans around 2000 and released it as open source under the name Forte shortly thereafter.

Post by Buch
Jbuilder copied Visual basic concept, did it not, and nobody finds that
objectionable)

Wrong. Borland invented the modern IDE when they released Delphi. VB got big on that concept, as did Borland.
JBuilder copies from the concepts of Delphi.

Post by Buch
(and VB copied something, I cant remember now what was it)
So, all these Foundations, OpenTools whatever was just late and unadequate
reactions.

Wrong again. OTA existed before most people had heard about pluggable architectures.

Post by Buch
Foundation is not open source, like they are its counterparts, and

Except for a few zealots it doesn't matter one bit whether something is open source or not.
In fact I'd rather have something that's stable than some open source thingy that has a new release every other day.

Post by Buch
I understand you're angry. Your favourite tool, for which you gave fat
money, is going down ... again.

Going down is one thing, comitting suicide is another.

[Buch]

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Wrong. Sun was there first when they bought out Netbeans around 2000 and

released it as open source under the name Forte shortly thereafter.
No. Sun boosted Netbeans effort when they saw Eclipse. Prior history is
irreleveant in this context.

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Wrong. Borland invented the modern IDE when they released Delphi. VB got

big on that concept, as did Borland.

Post by Jeroen Wenting
JBuilder copies from the concepts of Delphi.

No. Delphi added OO to existing concept of visual design. VB was before few
years before Delphi.

Post by Jeroen Wenting

Post by Buch
So, all these Foundations, OpenTools whatever was just late and unadequate
reactions.

Wrong again. OTA existed before most people had heard about pluggable architectures.

So what? Again you're making irreleveant-to-context remarks. There would be
no Foundation editions without market pressure.

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Except for a few zealots it doesn't matter one bit whether something is open source or not.
In fact I'd rather have something that's stable than some open source

thingy that has a new release every other day.

There is poster here who claims he is making new IDE out of Eclipse. Being
here for few years, I would not call him a zealot.
The point is, he can do it because he has the source, and he would not be
able to do it without source.
If something is open source, then you have additional chance you won't go
down when somebody discontinues development, because you can
fix it, or, "zealots" will fix it for you. Concept is very visible with
Linux vs. Windows bugfix release times.
As for every day releases, nobody forces you to accept it. In fact, that is
not wise at all. If something is doing its job, why change it? Of course,
another zhing is that you need to monitor new releases, to keep in touch
with technology, so you will have better background when you will upgrade
your system.

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Going down is one thing, comitting suicide is another.

Borland can cut off IDE development costs this way.
This whole Eclipse - JBuilder situation reminds me of one WWII parallel.
Germans had Tiger tanks, which were very deadly, but hard to produce and
maintain. Russians made T-34, simple tank, manuverable, easy to maintain,
with one technical breakthrough, armor with angle.
Later, Germans came to sense with Panther, improoved copy of T-34, but it
was too late...

[Paul Furbacher [TeamB]]

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Wrong. Borland invented the modern IDE when they
released Delphi.

Actually, NeXT invented it with the release of
Project Builder (PB) and Interface Builder (IB) in 1989.
One of the original Delphi team members has acknowledged
the influence of NeXT's tools on Delphi. (Technically,
PB and IB may have been "invented" at Carnegie Mellon (CM),
as a Ph.D. project. A good amount of what went into
NeXTStep was derived from project at CM.)

Delphi was inspired by PB/IB. National Instrument's
"LabVIEW" also preceded Delphi in the ability to design
an application using graphical tools -- in fact, it was
and is entirely graphical.

Post by Jeroen Wenting
JBuilder copies from the concepts of Delphi.

And from NeXT. The all-in-one window IDE of JBuilder
follows in the tradition of Project Builder, not IDEs
like those of ThinkC and Metrowerks where you suffer
death by a billion source code windows. (Blake Stone
was a NeXTStep/OpenStep developer prior to migrating
to Delphi and then to Java, and he most likely brought
a lot of his experience with PB and IB to JBuilder.
Obviously, there were many influences on the original
design of JBuilder, and it have evolved a lot over
time to incorporate great ideas from everywhere and
to originate great home-grown ideas, like the XMT
framework on which all the Web, EJB, and other Modules
build from.)

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Wrong again. OTA existed before most people had
heard about pluggable architectures.

Most people ... probably true. But the notion of pluggable
architecture is kind of old and there were predecessors
to the OpenTool API. For instance, OpenDoc (Apple and
IBM) was an early attempt to create a pluggable
architecture. Others offered plug-in APIs: Macromedia
Director, Adobe products, etc. Nowadays, pluggability
is quite widespread ... except maybe in Microsoft's
products. (We'll see if IE 7 and future versions
of Outlook are pluggable as are Firefox and Thunderbird.
My bet is no.)
--
Paul Furbacher (TeamB)

Save time, search the archives:
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/ngsearch.html

Is it in Joi Ellis's Faq-O-Matic?
http://www.visi.com/~gyles19/fom-serve/cache/1.html

Finally, please send responses to the newsgroup only.
That means, do not send email directly to me.
Thank you.