On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:22:29 +0200, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com> wrote:

> But Eclipse bashing by people who use say, VisualStudio, that I don't understand. Last time I tried both toolchains, VS seemed as heavy and "bloated" as Eclipse (CDT) was. Yet CDT seemed quite ahead in terms of features, especially semantics-wise (open definition, code complete, etc.). Admittedly this was 3-4 years ago, and I only toyed lightly with C/C++ code, I didn't do any serious development. But I doubt the situation changed such that VS got much better than CDT, if anything, the opposite is more likely.

Well I did/do use Eclipse+CDT heavy with C++ development as well for python development. Eclipse+CDT has improved A LOT over the last years. Besides it has very valuable plugins for example linuxtools and for embedded linux development www.yoctoproject.org.
For vim users there are plenty plugins/options available to use vim as editor in eclispe.
I also don't really understand the bashing. But IMO VS for development on-and-for windows is still ahead of eclipse.

On 9/16/13 8:52 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with IDE "official endorsement" was
> more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei, etc.) *use* VisualD or another
> IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to compiler/debugger integration).

If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely to ever happen.  Demanding that the core devs develop with specific tools is ridiculous in concept.  Would you switch because someone told you to?  Me either.  I've been using vi(m) for about 20 years now.  My fingers know what to do without conscious control.. I don't have the free time nor the desire to retrain myself like that.

> Just having them make an "official endorsement" of an IDE, or putting it in the DLang github, but
> without actually using it much, that I'm not sure what it would achieve. The vast majority of other
> D users will just use the IDE of their choice regardless. The number of contributors to VisualD is
> likely to not change much either, I suspect.

There's value in just elevating something to the label official.  Bundling with releases.  Including on the downloads page.  Increased discussion and awareness.  Etc.

On 17 September 2013 01:52, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 13/09/2013 08:46, eles wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:05:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a critical piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D usage into Microsoft Visual Studio.)
>>>
>>
>> Allow me to support this idea, however to suggest that also add a cross-platform IDE/plug-in.
>>
>> This is important for the Linux world.
>>
>> Current choices are DDT, for Eclipse and Mono-D, for MonoDevelop.
>>
>> I would vote for the two for the time being and see how things develop.
>>
>> Official endorsement should increase their visibility, their use and, why not, patches.
>>
>> In the future, they could also be integrated in the installer.
>>
>> I would also suggest to move DDT on github (Mono-D is already there).
>>
>> All these, of course, only if respective authors agree. I kindly ask them to provide their POV.
>>
>>
> It's not clear to me what any of these measures would help with.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with IDE "official endorsement" was more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei, etc.) *use* VisualD or another IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to compiler/debugger integration).
>
> Just having them make an "official endorsement" of an IDE, or putting it in the DLang github, but without actually using it much, that I'm not sure what it would achieve. The vast majority of other D users will just use the IDE of their choice regardless. The number of contributors to VisualD is likely to not change much either, I suspect.


Well, currently the number of Visual-D contributors is exactly 1. I don't find it that impossible to see a 2x, maybe even 3x increase in contributors. I think the most important point though, is that the bugs are in the same tracker as all the rest, and in all contributors faces. Which means all contributors, regardless of their ...orientation, will have some sense of the health of a critically important part of the eco-system. It also offers better data to strategy discussions and whatnot.

Remeber, this isn't about 'the vast majority of other D users'. This is
about the VAST majority who _are not yet D users_. And many of them
consider lack of VisualStudio, or maybe another full featured IDE offering,
a hands-down deal breaker. It's also a statement about the
polish/ready-ness of the language.
So I think it's in the interest of all D users to know about the health of
this part of the ecosystem if they want to see the language succeed...
which will eventually lead to abundance of libraries, and tested frameworks
that the community today is simply too small to develop/maintain.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:24:42 +0100, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/09/2013 10:25, Regan Heath wrote:
>> Eclipse is dreadful.  I hate it with a passion.
>
> Any feedback why? Bloat, sluggishness? I do hope it's not just because the way it used to handle refreshing of resources...

The smallest part of it is simply getting used to different hotkeys, and swapping back and forth between it and MSVC with a different set of hotkeys.  I realise this "problem" goes away with time, however as long as I have to use both, it remains an issue to some degree.

Sluggishness is an issue.

Yes, refreshing was/is a major problem .. and we're stuck on an old version for one of our products - due to other library dependencies.  Some of these comments may be related to that old version, i.e. the refresh problem

When you search for text in files, if the file hasn't been 'refreshed' it gives an error/warning, instead of just refreshing it - who thought that was a good idea!

Builds often fail, until you refresh, cleanup, refresh, cleanup often multiple times.

Build path settings seem to go missing all by themselves.

There are probably more refresh related issues but I can't recall them ATM.  TBH I avoid using it as much as I can, and I do less work in Java than C/C++ and for the latter prefer MSVC.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 16/09/13 23:39, Brad Roberts wrote:
> If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely to ever
> happen.  Demanding that the core devs develop with specific tools is ridiculous
> in concept.  Would you switch because someone told you to?  Me either.  I've
> been using vi(m) for about 20 years now.  My fingers know what to do without
> conscious control.. I don't have the free time nor the desire to retrain myself
> like that.

However, if you're a core project dev, it _can_ make sense to deliberately explore the usability of your code from the point of view of someone using a particular popular tool, even if it's not part of your day to day workflow.

It's amazing how many adoption problems can be solved simply by putting a little bit of effort into understanding how to make it _easy_ for people to get your work up and running with their habitual toolchain.

Of course it'd be wrong to demand that core devs develop with specific tools, but it's not at all wrong to suggest that they regularly try out alternative toolchains so that they have personal experience of the kinds of problems that users will encounter.

On 16/09/2013 16:33, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
> And bashing from people that use InteliJ, Netbeans and Eclipse,
> depending on the customer?
>
>  From these three, Eclipse is the one that always gives me more
> headaches in terms of responsiveness, the workspace concept, build tools
> that don't make to external build tools, loosing metadata just because
> and unstable plugins.
>
> --
> Paulo

That's another discussion altogether, usually about Eclipse's Java and Web development tools.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 16/09/2013 22:39, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 9/16/13 8:52 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with
>> IDE "official endorsement" was
>> more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei,
>> etc.) *use* VisualD or another
>> IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to
>> compiler/debugger integration).
>
> If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely
> to ever happen.  Demanding that the core devs develop with specific
> tools is ridiculous in concept.  Would you switch because someone told
> you to?  Me either.  I've been using vi(m) for about 20 years now.  My
> fingers know what to do without conscious control.. I don't have the
> free time nor the desire to retrain myself like that.
>

I agree, I don't think it's a realistic to expect that. I was just pointing out Manu's idea, not agreeing with it.

>> Just having them make an "official endorsement" of an IDE, or putting
>> it in the DLang github, but
>> without actually using it much, that I'm not sure what it would
>> achieve. The vast majority of other
>> D users will just use the IDE of their choice regardless. The number
>> of contributors to VisualD is
>> likely to not change much either, I suspect.
>
> There's value in just elevating something to the label official.
> Bundling with releases.  Including on the downloads page.  Increased
> discussion and awareness.  Etc.

Is that going to happen? Bundling VisualD with DMD releases? Or just including it in the downloads page?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 17/09/2013 02:30, Manu wrote:
> On 17 September 2013 01:52, Bruno Medeiros
> <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com <mailto:brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 13/09/2013 08:46, eles wrote:
>
>         On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:05:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>             Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a
>             critical piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D
>             usage into
>             Microsoft Visual Studio.)
>
>
>         Allow me to support this idea, however to suggest that also add a
>         cross-platform IDE/plug-in.
>
>         This is important for the Linux world.
>
>         Current choices are DDT, for Eclipse and Mono-D, for MonoDevelop.
>
>         I would vote for the two for the time being and see how things
>         develop.
>
>         Official endorsement should increase their visibility, their use
>         and,
>         why not, patches.
>
>         In the future, they could also be integrated in the installer.
>
>         I would also suggest to move DDT on github (Mono-D is already
>         there).
>
>         All these, of course, only if respective authors agree. I kindly ask
>         them to provide their POV.
>
>
>     It's not clear to me what any of these measures would help with.
>
>     Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with
>     IDE "official endorsement" was more to try to have the D language
>     organization devs (Walter, Andrei, etc.) *use* VisualD or another
>     IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to
>     compiler/debugger integration).
>
>     Just having them make an "official endorsement" of an IDE, or
>     putting it in the DLang github, but without actually using it much,
>     that I'm not sure what it would achieve. The vast majority of other
>     D users will just use the IDE of their choice regardless. The number
>     of contributors to VisualD is likely to not change much either, I
>     suspect.
>
>
> Well, currently the number of Visual-D contributors is exactly 1. I
> don't find it that impossible to see a 2x, maybe even 3x increase in
> contributors.
> I think the most important point though, is that the bugs are in the
> same tracker as all the rest, and in all contributors faces. Which means
> all contributors, regardless of their ...orientation, will have some
> sense of the health of a critically important part of the eco-system. It
> also offers better data to strategy discussions and whatnot.
>
> Remeber, this isn't about 'the vast majority of other D users'. This is
> about the VAST majority who _are not yet D users_. And many of them
> consider lack of VisualStudio, or maybe another full featured IDE
> offering, a hands-down deal breaker. It's also a statement about the
> polish/ready-ness of the language.
> So I think it's in the interest of all D users to know about the health
> of this part of the ecosystem if they want to see the language
> succeed... which will eventually lead to abundance of libraries, and
> tested frameworks that the community today is simply too small to
> develop/maintain.

Maybe, maybe not. The "health" of this part of the ecosystem might become more visible, yes, but it won't necessarily mean it will get better. The case with DWT is a very close parallel: it got promoted as an official GUI toolkit, yet it didn't seem to have a visible effect on contributions.

But at this point I don't think it's worth guessing, we'll just have to wait and see.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 17/09/2013 12:37, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 16/09/2013 22:39, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/16/13 8:52 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with
>>> IDE "official endorsement" was
>>> more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei,
>>> etc.) *use* VisualD or another
>>> IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to
>>> compiler/debugger integration).
>>
>> If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely
>> to ever happen.  Demanding that the core devs develop with specific
>> tools is ridiculous in concept.  Would you switch because someone told
>> you to?  Me either.  I've been using vi(m) for about 20 years now.  My
>> fingers know what to do without conscious control.. I don't have the
>> free time nor the desire to retrain myself like that.
>>
>
> I agree, I don't think it's a realistic to expect that. I was just
> pointing out Manu's idea, not agreeing with it.
>

Clarification: I think it's unrealistic to expected the core devs to use the IDE for all of their D development, yes. But it would be good to have them *try* it, to see how it works, to understand how others users would develop in D, what quality issues there could be with it, etc. In this regard I agree with Manu's comments.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 17 September 2013 21:48, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 17/09/2013 12:37, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>
>> On 16/09/2013 22:39, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/13 8:52 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Manu's point with regards with
>>>> IDE "official endorsement" was
>>>> more to try to have the D language organization devs (Walter, Andrei,
>>>> etc.) *use* VisualD or another
>>>> IDE and understand the issues around it (especially with regards to
>>>> compiler/debugger integration).
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that's the definition of official endorsement, then sorry, not likely to ever happen.  Demanding that the core devs develop with specific tools is ridiculous in concept.  Would you switch because someone told you to?  Me either.  I've been using vi(m) for about 20 years now.  My fingers know what to do without conscious control.. I don't have the free time nor the desire to retrain myself like that.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree, I don't think it's a realistic to expect that. I was just pointing out Manu's idea, not agreeing with it.
>>
>>
> Clarification: I think it's unrealistic to expected the core devs to use the IDE for all of their D development, yes. But it would be good to have them *try* it, to see how it works, to understand how others users would develop in D, what quality issues there could be with it, etc. In this regard I agree with Manu's comments.


I'll happily wear that my assertion was heavy handed, mostly due to
long-term frustration, and to some extent, this is just the way I talk
(which never comes across in text to people who don't know me).
Regardless of how I phrased it however, I'm encouraged to see the message
was generally well received and actions have been taken. I'm keen to see
if/how it affects the ecosystem in the future.
I hope it does increase the overall attention/awareness.