Compelling reasons for IDEA
Although I am an avid fan of IDEA, I am truly struggling to explain why someone should prefer to use IDEA over a free competitor, such as Eclipse. Of course, I can see the justification for myself, but my explanation so far is not much more than "because it's just better".
Of course I could rant about the same things that many rant about on blogs, etc., but this all seems to be subjective material - far from compelling.
Can anyone provide some substantial arguments that would appear compelling to an observer who is not swayed either way?
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Hi Alain,
>"These projects" are just plain web-applications. Nothing special here.
>If it can be done in PHP/JSP/ASP and doesn't rely on a very special
>architecture/library, it can - most probably - be done in Rails, faster,
>with less code.
That's just it... I've been working in web applications development for almost a decade, from the days when Perl was everything, through PHP, JSP, ASP etc. During that time there have been a lot of other "fad" web languages coming and going but none of them except PHP really ever gained commercial viability - if it's not backed by Microsoft or IBM most people don't want to know. Rails is not difficult to learn, in fact it's probably easier than PHP was when it first became mainstream, but I've yet to see anywhere actually using it.
>If nothing else, write your own bug tracker, blog, or personal site with
>Rails. Basic (shared) hosting with Rails support is also very cheap:
>2$/month (Railsplayground.com, f.ex), 30$/year (Dreamhost, with the
>coupons), etc..
Again we talk about "toys". I wrote a blog in Rails as the first webapp I was playing around with (simple blogs are pretty easy to write in any mainstream web language). Yes I found it was quick and easy, but what I think of it is not the issue, it's what companies think of it.
You talk about this but completely ignore my question which was simply "who is using it commercially?". I only really heard about Rails a year ago but during that time I have not seen a single job advertised in my area for Rails developers or even developers with exposure to Rails.
The point for JetBrains is that without commercial support who is going to buy a Rails IDE? It's usually companies that purchase high-end IDE's rather than individuals. Most individual developers can happily play with the freebies for months on end and notice little difference.
Anyways, enough on this subject I guess, I've managed to help it go off-topic enough already... sorry!! :)
Rob
Rob
> Anyways, enough on this subject I guess, I've managed to help it go
off-topic enough already...
It's about developing with pleasure, so I don't think it's off-topic.
> my question .. "who is using it commercially?".
See:
http://rubyonrails.com/applications
Also, Google has just bought MeasureMap, and MeasureMap is a Rails app.
http://www.measuremap.com/
> I only really heard about Rails a year ago
Rails is 2 years old.
> but during that time I have not seen a single job advertised in my
> area for Rails developers or even developers with exposure to Rails.
There are not many yet, but it's coming:
http://jobs.rubynow.com/
> The point for JetBrains is that without commercial support who is
> going to buy a Rails IDE? It's usually companies that purchase high-
> end IDE's rather than individuals. Most individual developers can
> happily play with the freebies for months on end and notice little
> difference.
TextMate solo developer is a rich man now, thanks to thousands of -
MacOS X!! - Rails developers who want to develop in Rails with pleasure.
(Textmate is the editor you see used in the official Rails screencasts).
People are buying Mac because of TextMate because of Rails, but TextMate
is and will stay a Mac only product => the Linux and Windows worlds are
left to conquer, and they are full of people who want to develop with
Pleasure in Rails.
Alain
+The simplest web project in java has you jump through half a dozen
misaligned hoops : servlets, Sping, Struts, Hibernate, etc...
+
Yes, it's this kind of nonsense that JetBrains needs to be careful of, if they want to avoid wasting their time.
"The simplest web project" can built using JSP. You don't need Spring, or Hibernate or anything else if you don't want to use it. I don't have to set up an enviroment, learn RubyGem, or learn the various commands needed to generate the scaffolding.
When I read comments like this, all it does is make me think that RoR folk will make up any old unconvincing crap in their desperation to sell it as the 2nd coming. And that's a shame, because it deserves better.
If Rails is so easy, then surely you don't need an IDE!
Could you write a plug-in for it?
And could you sell it at a price that these folk will be willing to buy it, and still make money?
And when will we see JFerret! ....
People are buying Mac because of TextMate because of Rails]]>
... now are you REALLY sure that's why folk are buying Macs?
So they can run TextMate and Rails?
Nothing to do with the publicity due to the runaway success of the iPod and the Music store?
How about the perceived buginess and insecurity of Windows?
Or could it be the 'cool' OS and Cocoa development?
I cannot recall seeing one pundit anywhere, saying that "the Mac will sell ten million machines next year because it's a good platform for editing Ruby."
But here's a thought.
I think Ruby is a great language (Java should certainly pick up some of its tricks), but I'm not so sure about Rails yet. The templating mechanism is terrible (I've been spoiled by Wicket and Tapestry) and file-based session handling as standard?!! Good grief
Now if Apple were to come up with a Ruby/Cocoa bridge ... or allow WebObjects applications to be built using Ruby as well as Java and ObjectiveC. Then I think we'd see the real explosion.
As is sometime the case when you let software developers lead your product vision, JFerret mutated over the weekend, becoming far cooler, more powerful, and more saleable, but not actually getting any closer to completion. Trust us, we want it completed as much as you do.
Sixth and Red River Software
"Code with Grace and Verve"
I think this will be your biggest seller.
The other stuff is great too, but this ...
Look forward to seeing it.
Has anyone even noticed that
1) 95% of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original question??? If anyone wants to talk about their preferred flavor-of-the day technology, by all means, start the dedicated topic and rant about it all you want... Do you really think you have helped the guy who apparently wanted to know nothing more than some ... "compelling reasons for IntelliJ" vs. Eclipse?
2) The folks with the worst grammar skills tend to post the longest messages... what's up with that?? Just browsing through this thread was a torture. :)
Cheers...
Read again and you'll see that it was all about developing with
pleasure, and suggestions for staying/coming back on the top of the wave.
Like Eclipse, JB does Java, dotNet, javascript, css, html, xml, etc..
groovy, and python through plugins. How would spending a little tipe
time on developing a kick-ass Ruby plugin hurt JB financials/image? How
would it not help them assert that they are serious about languages? How
is that off-topic, when the thread is about comparing a plugin/language
platform - Eclipse - with IDEA?
Alain Ravet
Uff, the temperature here is way too high, isn't it?
Indeed, implementing a Ruby plugin with functionality similar to what JavaScript
now has is matter of couple of weeks probably. On the other hand this is
not what on Rails market demands for IMO. What about database schema aware
completion, debugging and testing frameworks supports, deployment and packaging
and all the stuff any web application requires regardless what framework/language?
And all this stuff is far from being free to embed into IDEA right now.
There's also another assumption you've made Alain about it's free to strip
off Java functionality from IDEA, which is wrong unfortunately.
So, what we can do for (almost) free is Ruby language plugin embedded into
Java IDE, which costs $500. I'm not sure if that will sell.
How come xml, jsp, css, html do rule and ruby does not, you may ask? The
fact is all those languages suites into java programmer workbench alltogether,
which is our primary audience for now.
Well, that's very sad you personally falling out of this audience. We'll
miss you and already miss in fact. It even makes sense to code this up during
week ends just to get you back! :) It's just marketing situation feels like
placing a real bid on this will be unwise.
-
Maxim Shafirov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
Maxim
>
I'm thick skinned so I didn't feel it.
I won't try and tell you how to run your business, but I can just say
it's a shame that all the magic you've build into IDEA around css, html,
xml, javascript, svn, etc.. is lost to the non-Java world. I miss those
features every day.
I keep thinking it would take you no time to disable/hide the java
features and package a cheaper "lite" version of IDEA that could serve
as a smart editor for xml/html/css/javascript/sql/etc.., and also as a
platform for plugins and companion products.
In the meantime, I'll cross wood and touch my fingers.
Alain
+I keep thinking it would take you no time to disable/hide the java
features and package a cheaper "lite" version of IDEA +
Software marketing 101: No one ever buys "lite" versions of any software product. It just doesn't happen. If they need the functionality that would be in a "lite" version, they either buy the heavy version (figuring they'll need the extra functionality eventually, and why hassle with the restrictions), or they pirate the heavy version (figuring they aren't actually depriving the company of a sale, so what's the harm). There's a caveat if the "lite" version is actually free, and can be installed with a single click (Adobe Reader), but that's pretty much the limit of what people are willing to spend for limited-functionality software. One mouse click.
It is possible to segment a software market. JetBrains does it with open-source and now user's group licenses, as well as personal licenses. You just can't do it by cutting down functionality. Users see that as damage, and route around it.
To a first approximation, every penny of development spend that anyone has ever put into a "lite" version of software has been pure waste.
BTW, do you have some SQL-aware version of IDEA that I don't have access to? The one with the schema-aware completion and the relational-algebra-based refactoring tools? The one with the built-in query analyzer that tells you as an inspection when your joins are suboptimal, and offers quickfixes? That must be sweet! Otherwise, I'm not sure how you're saying that IDEA supports SQL.
--Dave Griffith
Dave
The "Lite" version is a pure non-Java version. It's not targeted at poor
java devopers, but at non-java (web) developers.
If you remove java from IDEA, it's still full of integrated and
cooperating gems that people may benefit from: diff viewer,
css/xml/javascript/html refactorings, js inspections, unlimited undos,
etc..
Would people pay 50$ for this? Maybe. Would people pay 50-100$ for a
Rails (or PHP?) companion plugin that runs on top the lite and full
version? I think so.
Does it make sense for JetBrains? I can't answer this question.
Alain
Constantine Vasilyev wrote:
Since we're already off-topic: You seem to have similar problems as
"matthewarena"; some of the punctuation characters on your keyboard
appear to be "sticky" and produce two or three periods or question
marks instead of just one.
Regards,
Jens
> I think Ruby is a great language (Java should
> certainly pick up some of its tricks), but I'm not so
> sure about Rails yet.
http://stripes.mc4j.org/confluence/display/stripes/Home
Stripes isn't quite there yet but it's starting to show some real promise. From what I can tell it's being developed by Java people who appreciate Rails but want Java on Rails instead (most likely because they don't believe in the long-term viability of the Ruby language).
Also, thanks for those links Alain, the real world examples site in particular was very interesting.
Rob
Could you start something off as a proof of concept, then just see if anyone picks it up?
If it's not too much effort that is?
Hello Rayz,
R> Could you start something off as a proof of concept, then just see if
R> anyone picks it up?
...and starts selling it as a commercial product of their own?
--
Dmitry Jemerov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
Mmm ... Very interesting.
Seems that there is still demand for this kind of framework. Can't really see why Fabrique was still-born.
most likely because they don't believe in the long-term viability of the Ruby language)
Well the language itself is older than Java apparently; I'm a tad worried that it now seems to be dependent on the success of Rails.
+Would people pay 50$ for this? Maybe. +
Not a chance in hell.
It doesn't matter how you slice the functionality, nobody wants to be told "We're trying to sell you something that we made by taking out features from our real product". You might as well append it with "and we think you are cheap and your mother dresses you funny". It's insulting to the customer, and makes the producer look sleazy, desperate, and dim.
Selling software is an inherently difficult business to look good in, since you are trying to convince someone to give you money for something they know you can produce at a marginal cost of $0. Image matters, and nothing destroys your image faster than de-functioning your products. Hell, I'd start looking for alternatives if JetBrains produced IDEA-lite.
--Dave Griffith
...and starts selling it as a commercial product of their own?
Mmm .. no.
I really don't think the Rails community is about paying money for tools. GPL it, then it can be enhanced for free (maybe).
If it's no trouble, then it might be a useful experiment, if nothing else.
Dave,
> nobody wants to be told "We're trying to sell you something that we
> made by taking out features from our real product".
Once again, it's not a inferior IDEA, it's packaged/sold as a new
product: a smart xml/css/javascript/html/.. editor, that can inspect and
refactor in all those file formats. It also offers diff viewing/editing,
versioning, unlimited undo, image viewing, navigations, etc... and can
be enhanced though plugins/companion products.
It's not a cheaper product, it's another product, that happens to share
all its codebase with IDEA; but there is no need to tell this to the
public.
Alain
As if the public is totally stupid :).
Ahmed.
Rayz
Not true.
Rails developer are hungry for information and they buy all the books
they can find (the official/free doc sucks, and you don't go very far
with the few tutorials you'll find on the web).
For example, I've already purchased the Ruby book (paper version), and 3
Rails book in pdf format (around 22$ each). Two more books are being
written, and I'll purchase the pdf beta version when it's available.
Most MacOS Rails developers use TextMate (49$/39?). They also use
Locomotive, not because it is free, but because it's brilliant and it
just works.
Rails developers also pay for a hosting account to deploy their
applications. The cheapest hosting is 24$/year, and is ideal for hobbyist.
Don't say Rails developers are greedy. They're ready to spend, if it's
worth it.
Alain
>> ...and starts selling it as a commercial product of their own?
>> Mmm .. no.
>> I really don't think the Rails community is about paying money for tools.
I thought that they need only 2 books (err... in fact only one) :).
Ahmed.
Yes you are right, sorry Rayz, that was meant to read "commercial viability" or "long-term commercial viability" rather than simply "long-term viability". Also, I should probably add that statement was my opinion, I don't know the developers and have no idea what motivates them (other than the obvious if they are male - money, fast cars and women). ;)
There is undoubtedly still a demand for this kind of framework, which is arguably the main reason so many people are looking to jump on the Rails bandwagon. Only time will tell whether that is all Rails is, however it certainly has a lot to offer that most web developers could benefit from.
Ahmed
>> I thought that they need only 2 books (err... in fact only one) :).
>
Gosh, I thought nobody would notice.
:(
You can go a very very long way with only the Rails book and the api
doc, but it's hard to resist the brilliant contents of the 2nd Rails
book :'Rails Recipes' (reminds me the "Java Cookbook"). The third book :
"Ruby for Rails" is not really necessary if you have the Ruby book, but
I couldn't resist.
Another book is being written about deploying Rails. Not really
necessary once you've deployed a few ones, but I can't resist smart
books written by smart people.
Alain
The public isn't stupid, and it has seen this sort of thing many times before. They just don't buy products like this, which might as well come with great big warning stickers on them that say "Our developers would rather be working on the real product!" and "We'll drop support for this in a heartbeat!".
Limited-functionality subset products have been tried many times in the history of commercial software, almost never successfully. Indeed, it's usually a good sign that the company trying it is about to go out of business.
I realize that you've found yourself in a tool-poor niche of software development, and are looking for assistance. That doesn't make producing a product for you a good idea, any more than it does for the AspectJ people.
--Dave Griffith
Dave
Since when is buying just what you need stupid?
Tell me what is stupid:
- pay 500$ for IDEA, just to have an XML smart-editor that can refactor
and analyze XML, version and display diffs
- pay 50$ for IDEA-XML, just to have an XML smart-editor that can
refactor and analyze XML, version and display diffs
Alain
Hmmm... I wonder how a struggling comedian has stumbled upon this forum? The "three periods" you are referring to are called "ellipsis" and constitute a possibly ommited ending of a phrase that could complete the sentence but might not be necessary for understanding.