Plugin idea for web development

Not many people here probably do a lot of straight HTML programming, so maybe
this won't interest many of you. However, I think IDEA is in a position to
become a platform for Dreamweaver-like editing.

I last used Dreamweaver version MX 2004, and it sucked pretty bad. You could
edit the source and the graphical view (powered by Opera) and they would sync
up, and the selection would sync up and things like that, but you had to click a
resync button when you were done editing the source, and it didn't update live
in most cases. I think this is because Macromedia doesn't have the kinds of
lexing and parsing code in their editor that modern Java IDE's have.

I think an awesome plugin would be to take advantage of the fact that IDEA
always has a HTML page's DOM in memory, and it's completely up to date with the
editor. You could use JDIC browser component to embed mozilla browser component
in a toolwindow and keep it updated on every keypress. From there I think it
could expand to support editing in the mozilla component and keeping changes to
the dom in sync with IDEA's editor.

65 comments

(powered by Opera)

It is actually powered by Mozilla engine (you can even find some of the engine source code they have modified within your dreamweaver directory).
I wrote quite some plugins for Dreamweaver and you could easily trigger code sync, however, MM doesn't do it because of performance. They always had performance issues with DW code view...go figure..

Anyway, I think Idea is quite close to my HTML needs right now. Some more JS support and CSS improvements are welcome.

Previewing would be also a big +, but I can leave wihout it.
-j

0

M. J. Milicevic wrote:

(powered by Opera)

It is actually powered by Mozilla engine (you can even find some of the engine source code they have modified within your dreamweaver directory).
I wrote quite some plugins for Dreamweaver and you could easily trigger code sync, however, MM doesn't do it because of performance. They always had performance issues with DW code view...go figure..


In what version do you mean? I feel sure that MX 2004 is based on Opera. On OSX
it even contains a full Opera installation inside its program folder. It's
definitely not mozilla.

0

Keith

However, I think IDEA is in a position to become a platform for
Dreamweaver-like editing.




I'm pretty sure many many more people would be interested in a
Ruby/Rails editor. Just imagine how much productive you could be on
Rails with auto-completion, refactoring and quick javadoc à-la IDEA.
I could be wrong, of course.

Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

Keith

>> However, I think IDEA is in a position to become a platform for
>> Dreamweaver-like editing.




I'm pretty sure many many more people would be interested in a
Ruby/Rails editor. Just imagine how much productive you could be on
Rails with auto-completion, refactoring and quick javadoc à-la IDEA.
I could be wrong, of course.

Alain


First of all, I think there are 100x people making web pages than there are
people who have even heard of Ruby. So, I think you're completely wrong about
more people being interested.

I believe due to the nature of the Ruby language it's going to be impossible to
reach IDEA's current level of Java editing with Ruby. I don't think you should
hope for this.

0

Keith

First of all, I think there are 100x people making web pages than
there are people who have even heard of Ruby.




It's not about Ruby, it's about Rails.

Boatloads of people - me included - are moving to Rails, because it
lets them
"Develop web-apps with pleasure."
Does it sound familiar?


Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

It's not about Ruby, it's about Rails.

Boatloads of people - me included - are moving to Rails, because it
lets them
"Develop web-apps with pleasure."
Does it sound familiar?


Personally, I agree with Alain. It is not so much about how many people
currently work with technology X, it's about how many people will
work with technology X. To determine that, you look not at market size,
but at market growth. Rails has the highest rate of growth of any web
technology. The famous hockey star Wayne Gretzky once explained how he
was so great, "I don't skate to where the puck is, I skate to where
the puck is going to be."

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Forgot to mention that I suggested Ruby/Rails to the IDEA team, so we'll
see if the idea goes anywhere.

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Rob Harwood (JetBrains) wrote:

Alain Ravet wrote:

>> It's not about Ruby, it's about Rails.
>>
>> Boatloads of people - me included - are moving to Rails, because it
>> lets them
>> "Develop web-apps with pleasure."
>> Does it sound familiar?


Personally, I agree with Alain. It is not so much about how many people
currently work with technology X, it's about how many people will
work with technology X. To determine that, you look not at market size,
but at market growth. Rails has the highest rate of growth of any web
technology. The famous hockey star Wayne Gretzky once explained how he
was so great, "I don't skate to where the puck is, I skate to where
the puck is going to be."


Sorry guys I want to make sure we understand what is being said. You're saying
you think sometime in the future there will be more Ruby on Rails developers
than people who want to make a static web page, and would like a WYSIWYG editor
next to the source editor? This doesn't make any sense to me. My original
estimate of 100x more is probably orders of magnitude wrong. I bet there are
100,000x as many static pages being made as dynamic pages, let alone pages made
with Ruby.

I think if you guys are feeling so desperate as to abandon Java for web
application development you should look at the RIFE framework for Java. It has a
similar focus as Rails (usability and speed) and some similar features, but has
been around for much longer and has the full power and support of Java instead
of a flaky scripting language.

0

Keith

.. has the full power and support of Java instead of a flaky scripting
language.



If Rails is good enough to power BaseCamp and its tens of thousands of
users on 2 servers + 1 DB server, it's good enough for me.

A technology that lets you create and deploy a web-app in 1-2 hours
should at least trigger the curiosity of any professional developer.
You may ignore the gold rush, for a time, but it won't make the gold
disappear.


Alain

0

Forgot to mention that I suggested Ruby/Rails to the IDEA team, so
we'll see if the idea goes anywhere.



I hope they hear you, and rush to assemble a good team to develop a
kick-ass Ruby/Rails plugin, rather much sooner than later. In 6-months,
it will be too late.
There's a real business opportunity here, because there is a community
with a need for a tool. You don't need to be psychic to predict that
Eclipse will offer that to the world.


Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

Keith

>> .. has the full power and support of Java instead of a flaky scripting
>> language.



If Rails is good enough to power BaseCamp and its tens of thousands of
users on 2 servers + 1 DB server, it's good enough for me.

A technology that lets you create and deploy a web-app in 1-2 hours
should at least trigger the curiosity of any professional developer.
You may ignore the gold rush, for a time, but it won't make the gold
disappear.


Alain


The language is flaky, I don't know almost anything about the ruby runtime
platform. I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about being able to
easily write correct code, and to feel safe about it. I have a lot of experience
with scripting languages and they have led me to like Java for all its safety
and reliability, which has led to powerful tools like IDEA which are not
available, and probably won't be available, for languages like Ruby. To me this
is much more valuable than anything I've seen ruby or rails offering.

0

Keith

The language is flaky, I don't know almost anything about the ruby
runtime platform. I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about
being able to easily write correct code, and to feel safe about it.



When a web-app in Rails takes 200-300 lines of code, instead of 10.000,
your can use a lighter toolbox.

It reminds of a program I saw last year, abount an alpinist who was
climbing ultra-light: light-shoes, a little water and a light backpack
with just a few powerbars. He didn't need the tent, the kilos of food,
the intermediary camp, the support team because he was running, and
going up and down in 1 day. That's a real story.

Just do it. (tm)

Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

When a web-app in Rails takes 200-300 lines of code, instead of
10.000, your can use a lighter toolbox.

>

It reminds of a program I saw last year, abount an alpinist who was
climbing ultra-light: light-shoes, a little water and a light backpack
with just a few powerbars. He didn't need the tent, the kilos of food,
the intermediary camp, the support team because he was running, and
going up and down in 1 day. That's a real story.

>

Just do it. (tm)

>

Alain



0

Alain Ravet wrote:

When a web-app in Rails takes 200-300 lines of code, instead of
10.000, your can use a lighter toolbox.

>

I left my finger on the "0" key a little too long. Let's settle for 200
vs 2000?

See:
214 lines, written in 6 hours

http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/09/22/rails-wiki-resurrected-with-i2

Alain




0

Alain Ravet wrote:

Keith

>> The language is flaky, I don't know almost anything about the ruby
>> runtime platform. I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about
>> being able to easily write correct code, and to feel safe about it.



When a web-app in Rails takes 200-300 lines of code, instead of 10.000,
your can use a lighter toolbox.

It reminds of a program I saw last year, abount an alpinist who was
climbing ultra-light: light-shoes, a little water and a light backpack
with just a few powerbars. He didn't need the tent, the kilos of food,
the intermediary camp, the support team because he was running, and
going up and down in 1 day. That's a real story.

Just do it. (tm)

Alain


I think you're paying attention to hype instead of common sense and real
experience.

The entire 600-line Tadalist, whose release was a big event in building ruby on
rails hype, was recreated using a Java framework in 900 lines of code, half of
the extra lines being simple XML. See
http://rifers.org/blogs/gbevin/2005/3/18/blabla_tada_in_java and
http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/03/19/bla-bla-list-cloning-a-rails-app-in-rife/
and http://rifers.org/blogs/gbevin/2005/3/19/revisting_a_rails_app_in_rife

0

Keith

>

I think you're paying attention to hype instead of common sense and
real experience.

>

Have you tried it?


Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

Keith

>>
>> I think you're paying attention to hype instead of common sense and
>> real experience.
>>


Have you tried it?


Alain


Yes I've gone through tutorials and I have a friend who works on rails so I know
all about it.

0

It may be quicker to write an app in Ruby but from everything I've read it simply doesn't come close performance-wise to Java. Additionally, there's little evidence to point to that shows that it really scales in large clustered environments. So far, all I can see is a bunch of geeks getting a hard-on for it because it's the latest cute, sexy thing.

The truth is that much of what people are so excited about with Ruby has existed for a long time in a language called Smalltalk. How many Smalltalk coders do you know right now? Most likely, zero. There's just nothing new in Ruby. There's literally thousands of scripting languages and many of them have the same features as Ruby.

Don't get me wrong...if the industry starts leaning towards Ruby, I'll jump on the bandwagon in a second and wave goodbye to Java forever but right now there's really only geeks pushing for it. Unfortunately, it's corporations that pay the bills and they don't seem all that interested. All my friends are geeks and not one of them nor anyone they know of is doing Ruby for money.

0

Marc

>It may be quicker to write an app in Ruby but from everything I've read it simply doesn't come close performance-wise to Java.
>


Once again, it's not about Ruby, but about Rails, the web-app framework
that happens to be written in Ruby, and has triggered a second coming
for Ruby.

I would never think of writing a standalone app in Ruby.
For most/many/close to all Web-apps, that's another story : you either use
- Java + {Hibernate + Sping + Struts/Tapestry/JSF/.. + loads of XML + .. }
or
- Rails.

If you - and Keith - think it's a fad, good for me: there's enough
competition already :)

I've just purchased - 39? - a text editor - TextMate - because it
highlights Ruby syntax, and has basic templating features. I miss all
the other tricks IDEA has in its bag.

IDEA could make a difference in Rails' worlds, as it did in Java's
world. I want to develop web-apps with pleasure too.

Alain


0

Alain Ravet wrote:
> ...
> Once again, it's not about Ruby, but about Rails, the web-app
> framework
> that happens to be written in Ruby, and has triggered a second coming
> for Ruby.

It's not necessarily even about Rails itself. To me, it's more about the
way Rails implements things that no else has before.

Compare it to IDEA. Before IDEA, name be an IDE with any refactoring,
general smarts and ease of use, you can't. IDEA rethought the way things
were done and how it could be done better.

Now look at the state of IDE's. Everyone has copied what Jetbrains
started, to the benefit of everyone.

The same will happen with web-application development because of Rails.
It's not that Ruby is the greatest language ever. It's that they are the
first to re-think how web-application development should work and they
do it way better than any other framework.

This is not anything that you can't do with javaspringhibernate (for
example), it's just that with Java, it's just not that easy to do (yet).

Alain Ravet wrote:

Marc

>> It may be quicker to write an app in Ruby but from everything I've
>> read it simply doesn't come close performance-wise to Java.


Once again, it's not about Ruby, but about Rails, the web-app framework
that happens to be written in Ruby, and has triggered a second coming
for Ruby.

I would never think of writing a standalone app in Ruby.
For most/many/close to all Web-apps, that's another story : you either use
- Java + {Hibernate + Sping + Struts/Tapestry/JSF/.. + loads of XML + .. }
or
- Rails.

If you - and Keith - think it's a fad, good for me: there's enough
competition already :)

I've just purchased - 39? - a text editor - TextMate - because it
highlights Ruby syntax, and has basic templating features. I miss all
the other tricks IDEA has in its bag.

IDEA could make a difference in Rails' worlds, as it did in Java's
world. I want to develop web-apps with pleasure too.

Alain

0

Keith Lea wrote:

Sorry guys I want to make sure we understand what is being said. You're
saying you think sometime in the future there will be more Ruby on Rails
developers than people who want to make a static web page, and would
like a WYSIWYG editor next to the source editor? This doesn't make any
sense to me. My original estimate of 100x more is probably orders of
magnitude wrong. I bet there are 100,000x as many static pages being
made as dynamic pages, let alone pages made with Ruby.


Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't following the thread, I only responded
to this post by Alain:

> > First of all, I think there are 100x people making web pages than
there are people who have even heard of Ruby.
>
> It's not about Ruby, it's about Rails.

I read "100x people making web pages" subconsciously as "100x people
making Java-based web applications", since that's the only comparison
that made sense to me without the context of the previous messages in
the thread. So, I was responding to the Ruby/Rails vs. Java/J2EE thing.

For what it's worth, there's been some discussion in JetBrains about
developing some sort of 'web designer' tool that would be like IDEA for
web designers. Something like what you were talking about in your
original post. Nothing solid, just ideas.

I think if you guys are feeling so desperate as to abandon Java for web
application development you should look at the RIFE framework for Java.
It has a similar focus as Rails (usability and speed) and some similar
features, but has been around for much longer and has the full power and
support of Java instead of a flaky scripting language.


I think RIFE is dead in the J2EE water. There are too many web
frameworks for Java, with no clear leader. Why not Wicket? Why not
Tapestry? Etc. Also, there are things you can do with Ruby you just
cannot do with Java. Ruby on Rails is a killer combo. It's going to take
something seriously collosal to stop it.

The key to the future of web development, as I see it, is this: Where
will the J2EE guys go? Where will the PHP guys go? Where will the Python
guys go? Where will the .Net guys go?

The J2EE guys will never go to PHP or Perl. Are you kidding? Maybe .Net,
but they have their reservations. Ruby at least is aesthetically along
Java's lines. And it will mature and eventually have libraries to rival
Java; it already has many.

The PHP guys? This is the biggest market. They'll never go to Java or
.Net, too complicated! Maybe Python, but if a PHP developer is trying to
go someplace, it's away from clunky syntax and inconsistency. Plus
Python doesn't have a superior alternative to Rails. Rails is fast to
develop with and fixes PHP's maintainability problem.

The Python guys will never go to PHP or J2EE or .Net. They have the
closest thing to what they want. Except Ruby/Rails is even closer.

The .Net guys are all over the map, some might switch to Java, some
might switch to PHP, some might switch to Python. But for those looking
for productivity in web development, they will consider Rails for sure.

Again, I'm not looking where the puck is, but where it will be.
Currently Ruby/Rails is growing fast, but it's missing an IDE. Give it
one, and BOOM, now you've got something unstoppable. Ruby 2.0 should add
some rocket fuel as well.

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Marc Stock wrote:

It may be quicker to write an app in Ruby but from everything I've read it simply doesn't come close performance-wise to Java. Additionally, there's little evidence to point to that shows that it really scales in large clustered environments. So far, all I can see is a bunch of geeks getting a hard-on for it because it's the latest cute, sexy thing.


Language performance is a non-issue for 99% of webapps. Most of the time
is spent marshalling data and DB access anyway. Plus, Ruby is still
interpreted. When Ruby 2.0 comes out with a compiler, Ruby performance
will drastically improve. (Not where the puck is...) Rails is not
targeting (currently) heavily clustered environments, it's targeting the
other 99% of webapps (the PHPs, Pythons, JSPs, ASP.NETs). And in any
case, scalability is currently good enough and will only get better.

The truth is that much of what people are so excited about with Ruby has existed for a long time in a language called Smalltalk. How many Smalltalk coders do you know right now? Most likely, zero. There's just nothing new in Ruby. There's literally thousands of scripting languages and many of them have the same features as Ruby.


The truth is that much of Java is based on Smalltalk, and how many Java
coders are there? Ruby != Smalltalk. The 'new' in Ruby is the
combination of features and the focus on the usability of the language.
It makes programming easier. In other words, the same things that
attract people to IDEA (which has 'nothing new') are the things that
attract people to Ruby.

Don't get me wrong...if the industry starts leaning towards Ruby, I'll jump on the bandwagon in a second and wave goodbye to Java forever but right now there's really only geeks pushing for it. Unfortunately, it's corporations that pay the bills and they don't seem all that interested. All my friends are geeks and not one of them nor anyone they know of is doing Ruby for money.


It's interesting. Bruce Tate was recently interviewed by Javacast (now
defunct). He had some story about being in a car with a bunch of the
speakers from the No Fluff Just Stuff conference (these are famous guys
like Dave Thomas, etc.). He didn't name names, but he said that, of the
six of them, five were already using Ruby/Rails professionally, and the
sixth was about to start. It's not where the puck is...

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Jeff

Alain Ravet wrote:

Once again, it's not about Ruby, but about Rails,

>

It's not necessarily even about Rails itself. To me, it's more about
the way Rails implements things that no else has before.





What are IDEA users using IDEA for?
- write standalone apps
- write web-apps <<-----

A part of the web development is moving/going to Rails
, like never before.
=> some people are going to drop IDEA because it doesn't support Ruby, .
, like never before.

An "easy" first step would be for Jetbrains to write a top-notch Ruby
plugin, with renaming, smartcompletion, Find usage, etc..


Alain

0

Gordon Tyler wrote:

http://www.djangoproject.com/

It's already being compared to Rails.


I'm aware of it, but you will quickly see that it is not superior to
Rails, and currently isn't close. RIFE and Trails, both for Java, are
also compared to Rails, but don't really match up. Django is new,
unproven, nobody uses it, and it doesn't have a large community, much
less David Heinemeier Hansson, who is Rails' version of Kent Beck from
Extreme Programming fame.

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Rob Harwood (JetBrains) wrote:

Where will the Python guys go?


]]>

The PHP guys? This is the biggest market. They'll never go to Java or
.Net, too complicated! Maybe Python, but if a PHP developer is trying to
go someplace, it's away from clunky syntax and inconsistency. Plus
Python doesn't have a superior alternative to Rails. Rails is fast to
develop with and fixes PHP's maintainability problem.

The Python guys will never go to PHP or J2EE or .Net. They have the
closest thing to what they want. Except Ruby/Rails is even closer.


http://www.djangoproject.com/

It's already being compared to Rails.

Ciao,
Gordon

--
Gordon Tyler (Software Developer)
Quest Software <http://www.quest.com/>
260 King Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5A 4L5, Canada
Voice: (416) 933-5046 | Fax: (416) 933-5001

0

Rob Harwood (JetBrains) wrote:

Gordon Tyler wrote:

>> http://www.djangoproject.com/
>>
>> It's already being compared to Rails.


I'm aware of it, but you will quickly see that it is not superior to
Rails, and currently isn't close. RIFE and Trails, both for Java, are
also compared to Rails, but don't really match up. Django is new,
unproven, nobody uses it, and it doesn't have a large community, much
less David Heinemeier Hansson, who is Rails' version of Kent Beck from
Extreme Programming fame.


But if you're talking about where the puck is going to be, my bet's on
Django.

Ciao,
Gordon

--
Gordon Tyler (Software Developer)
Quest Software <http://www.quest.com/>
260 King Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5A 4L5, Canada
Voice: (416) 933-5046 | Fax: (416) 933-5001

0

But if you're talking about where the puck is going
to be, my bet's on
Django.

Ciao,
Gordon


It is possible, but I strongly doubt it. Rails has 'crossed the chasm', being used on real projects by real people, Django is still in the innovator stage. This gives Rails a big head start. People by the thousands will start using Rails for real projects in the next year. Django will be lucky to get to version 1.0. The First Mover effect will be very strong here. Rails has a book, several articles and tutorials, a large community, etc. etc. etc. The momentum is very strong. I doubt Django will be much but a blip on the radar for a long time.

0

Rob Harwood wrote:

Currently Ruby/Rails is growing fast, but it's missing an IDE.



You wouldn't happen to know a company that works in that kind of
business, by any chance?!
I dream of autocompletion for ActiveRecords fields !

Give it one, and BOOM, now you've got something unstoppable.



Imagine the developers' productivity with Rails + IntelliRails !!
"Extract ERb", "Rename action", "Move", etc..
Guys, Christmas is in three months Enough time to launch IntelliRails
alpha - preview!!

Alain

0

Alain Ravet wrote:

You wouldn't happen to know a company that works in that kind of
business, by any chance?!
I dream of autocompletion for ActiveRecords fields !
Imagine the developers' productivity with Rails + IntelliRails !!
"Extract ERb", "Rename action", "Move", etc..


That's exactly the kind of functionality I was thinking of. Imagine
being able to refactor the database schema plus all your views and
controllers at the same time. Mmmmm.

--
Rob Harwood
Software Developer
JetBrains Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0

You're being a bit disingenuous here. Rails was only released this year. Please don't act like it's this product that's been around forever and is fully matured. It hasn't and it isn't.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a party-pooper. I just want the ruby/rails hype to be separated from the truth. I'm sure it's great stuff but I continually see geeks overstating the situation and I feel it needs to be reigned in a bit. Consequently, I make posts like this one. :)

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.