too late to drop this feature?

Hi Folks,

It would be great if you would drop the UI builder and instead focused on your strengths - coding by hand. Not only does adding features like this make the program larger and slower, it can also lead to instabilities. Plus, we are Linux users and there are significant BASIC bugs that have not been fixed, even though I submitted them a while back. (Please see Tracker Request # 7913 - cvs diff is broken over ssh on Linux).

Sincerely,

Matthew Cornell
UMass

20 comments
Comment actions Permalink

I for one would be really upset if they dropped this! The one thing I hate most about java is the lack of a decent GUI editor. I hope that Intellij will finally give us one.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Let me ask you two questions:

- Why do you think JetBrains is unable to work on both a UI builder and
their hand-coding features?

- Why do you think dropping the UI builder would lead to improvements in
other areas? Or, conversely, why do you think that continuing to develop it
will degrade the quality of the IDE?

I'm genuinely curious about these two things.

Vil.

m c wrote:

Hi Folks,

It would be great if you would drop the UI builder and instead focused on your strengths - coding by hand. Not only does adding features like this make the program larger and slower, it can also lead to instabilities. Plus, we are Linux users and there are significant BASIC bugs that have not been fixed, even though I submitted them a while back. (Please see Tracker Request # 7913 - cvs diff is broken over ssh on Linux).

Sincerely,

Matthew Cornell
UMass


--
Vilya Harvey
vilya.harvey@digitalsteps.com / digital steps /
(W) +44 (0)1483 469 480
(M) +44 (0)7816 678 457 http://www.digitalsteps.com/

Disclaimer

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally
privileged. If you have received this email and you are not a named
addressee, please inform the sender at Digital Steps Ltd by phone on
+44 (0)1483 469 480 or by reply email and then delete the email from
your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use,
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email. Although
Digital Steps Ltd routinely screens for viruses, addressees should
check this email and any attachments for viruses. Digital Steps Ltd
makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this
email or any attachments.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree

But instead, I love if they create UML designer (the one which is in Together) which brings the LiveSource and Reverse-Engineering into IDEA.

I read that most of the JetBrain guys worked in together, so it must be easy for them to give a wonderfull UML designer with report generation facility as they already have very nice PSI interface.

What you guys think?

0
Comment actions Permalink

UML already present in IDEA by Martin's plugin simpleUML.
It for reverse enginiring.
http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SimpleUML

And i disagree that UIDesigner is just a "feature" it must be part of IDEA.
The UI designing by now is very complex and hard to implement solution. But
Visual Studio have it since earlest version (4.0 i guess), this is very bold
point and it "feature" will be give some wieght of IDE application to IDEA
in Java world.

TogetherJ is very-very complex analyst system (i can't it call IDE, at
least) - and it not for comparing with IDEA. TogetherJ is not good for text
processing as IDEA e.t.c.

And last, i believe, that JetBrains may develop some great things, such as
Refactoring support for example, or Local VCS. Maybe UIDesigner will be a
great in times :)

Thank you

--
Alexey Efimov, Software Engineer
Sputnik Labs,
http://www.spklabs.com
"Anki" <no_reply@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:1537687.1058376710430.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I agree

>

But instead, I love if they create UML designer (the one which is in

Together) which brings the LiveSource and Reverse-Engineering into IDEA.
>

I read that most of the JetBrain guys worked in together, so it must be

easy for them to give a wonderfull UML designer with report generation
facility as they already have very nice PSI interface.
>

What you guys think?



0
Comment actions Permalink

m c wrote:

Hi Folks,

It would be great if you would drop the UI builder and instead focused on

>your strengths - coding by hand. Not only does adding features like
this make the program larger and slower,

First of all UI designer doen't make IDEA slower. If you have any
problem with performance please post a bug report. If you are
interesting in size you can remove UI designer plugin, but I definetely
do not understand what is the benefit.

Plus, we are Linux users and there are significant BASIC bugs

>that have not been fixed, even though I submitted them a while back.
(Please see Tracker Request # 7913 - cvs diff is broken over ssh on Linux).

I'm Linux user and I feel that IDEA very good on linux. Some things are
limited by implementation of JVM but we are doing a lot to make IDEA on
Linux as good as on Win32. If CVS doesn't work properly with SSH it's
not a reason to stop any development.

Best regards,
Vladimir Kondratyev
_____________________
JetBrains

0
Comment actions Permalink

I knew it, but as its name says it is simple.
I am not discouraging or commenting on that as it is nice plugin, but what I am expecting is ability to design the system with UML first and then start coding.

See the posting in which I attached a mock screenshot.
http://www.intellij.net/forums/thread.jsp?forum=18&thread=32618&tstart=0&trange=100

I donno how many of you will agree with me, but
what I feel is - First draw the UML (with all empty implementation ofcourse), make sure everything (the design model) is fine and start editing the code.


>>>>TogetherJ is not good for text processing as IDEA e.t.c.
Yep, very much true. I am dreaming of the combination of IDEA features with UML design.

And what I think is UI designer needs to be implemented from scratch, but with a very less time (may be 10% or even less of UI designer time) they can develop the UML designer ;)

Since the day I started using IDEA, I feel that I am missing this and may a must for big projects.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Please no, if Intellij start heading down the UML path then all is lost...

"Anki" <no_reply@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:1537687.1058376710430.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I agree

>

But instead, I love if they create UML designer (the one which is in

Together) which brings the LiveSource and Reverse-Engineering into IDEA.
>

I read that most of the JetBrain guys worked in together, so it must be

easy for them to give a wonderfull UML designer with report generation
facility as they already have very nice PSI interface.
>

What you guys think?



0
Comment actions Permalink

It would be great if you would drop the UI builder
and instead focused on your strengths - coding by
hand.


I agree. In fact I think you should go further. All Idea's features should be dropped in favour of coding by hand. You'd then have the simplest IDE on the market , and the highest profit margins. Perfect!

Vince.

0
Comment actions Permalink

- Why do you think JetBrains is unable to work on both a UI builder and their hand-coding features?

This is a good point, though I don't think I said it.


- Why do you think dropping the UI builder would lead to improvements in other areas? Or, conversely, why do you think that continuing to develop it will degrade the quality of the IDE?

Well, I went through this argument with the JBuilder folks a while back when they added a new feature (audio feedback). Adding new code is always a risk - you have to add hooks to existing code, and the new code can have bugs. There's also the feature bloat problem - a more confusing UI, slow UI features that accidentally get invoked, etc.

However, if there's a significant demand (which I was surprised to hear about), then the risks are outweighted by the new feature. I'd just hate to see this great program to the way of other IDEs - start successful, get too big and buggy, and fail.

0
Comment actions Permalink


m c wrote:

- Why do you think JetBrains is unable to work on both a UI builder and their hand-coding features?

This is a good point, though I don't think I said it.


- Why do you think dropping the UI builder would lead to improvements in other areas? Or, conversely, why do you think that continuing to develop it will degrade the quality of the IDE?

Well, I went through this argument with the JBuilder folks a while back when they added a new feature (audio feedback). Adding new code is always a risk - you have to add hooks to existing code, and the new code can have bugs. There's also the feature bloat problem - a more confusing UI, slow UI features that accidentally get invoked, etc.

However, if there's a significant demand (which I was surprised to hear about), then the risks are outweighted by the new feature. I'd just hate to see this great program to the way of other IDEs - start successful, get too big and buggy, and fail.


I see your point and concern, it seems though that the EAP is actually
cruising pretty quickly even with everything in it, to some degree it's
already faster than the official 3.0.x release. This is also with
JetBrains not doing much optimization on the code, since this is one of
the last things they usually do... at least it was for 3.x EAP.

On the point of it bloating up and failing like every other IDE, keep in
mind that the people who started JetBrains used to work for TogetherJ
and went through their process and bloat etc... so I think they know
what can happen. So far it hasn't happened, and I just don't believe it
will, I've seen way too many iterations of their products to know that
they're as much concerned about ease of use, as they are about feature
implementation and performance.

As to the buggy part... hey this is EAP, and these ARE the JetBrain
folks we're talking about, the same people who have the best refactoring
tools and ideas out there... I'm sure they can handle adding new code
and keeping performance going forward and bug levels low.

Just my 2c.

R

0
Comment actions Permalink

>cruising pretty quickly even with everything in it, to some degree it's
>already faster than the official 3.0.x release.

Really??? My EAP version is definitely half as fast as 3.0.4, when
working with the code editor (I do it 95% of the time).

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink

I really appreciate your thoughtful reply, Robert. Very informative. Thank you.

matt

0
Comment actions Permalink


Thomas Singer wrote:

>>cruising pretty quickly even with everything in it, to some degree it's
>>already faster than the official 3.0.x release.


Really??? My EAP version is definitely half as fast as 3.0.4, when
working with the code editor (I do it 95% of the time).


I guess we're doing different things Thomas. I don't see the speed
issues others report. Maybe it's a difference in platform and hardware
we're using? (2.4 ghz 1 gig of ram ultra ata drive 64mb of vram... so I
do have some muscle behind it all, but I might not feel the effects you
feel)

R

0
Comment actions Permalink

Just my two cents: I love the GUI designer. I have to make some simple GUIs for in-house use, and the new GUI feature is a huge timesaver for me.

It makes me want to keep sending money to JetBrains in order to get at the new useful stuff.

(very useful to me, at any rate)

Cheers.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Sorry Robert but I am with Thomas here. There are too many signs that IDEA is putting on weight and starting to slide. That it be the infrequent builds, the huge jump in build numbers, the sub-standard quality (compare to Ariadna), all lead to conclude that quality is harder to keep up and new features are more expensive to implement now. So naturally JetBrains must be very careful what they decide to put in.

But yes we are talking about JetBrains here so I still have hope that they can pull it off because so far I can only share Thomas' frustration: this EAP isn't "cruising along" and the builds are definitively not "faster" for me. Some of the most distinguished JetBrains might have had direct experience with bloat but it won’t matter if the market pressure forces them. As part of that force I believe it is our duty to remind them to stay slim and keep up their good work.

My other 2 c

Jacques

0
Comment actions Permalink

well enough... but keep in mind that the size of this eap is MUCH MUCH
bigger than in past, and that alone is enough to cause JetBrains growing
pains, and eap size management issues.

WHat ever happens, I think that telling them it's slow is fine, I was
just mentioning that I didn't see the issue here. Doesn't mean everyone
else doesn't. I personally don't concern myself with speed until we hit
the beta stage. We need to all remember that EAP is Alpha code at best,
it's not beta, the only reason why it runs as well as it does is because
the JetBrains folks put a lot of effort into giving us something usable.

If you remember in the Ariadna build, no performance improvements were
made until the feature list was completed and they went into beta bug
fixing mode only.

R

Jacques Morel wrote:

Sorry Robert but I am with Thomas here. There are too many signs that IDEA is putting on weight and starting to slide. That it be the infrequent builds, the huge jump in build numbers, the sub-standard quality (compare to Ariadna), all lead to conclude that quality is harder to keep up and new features are more expensive to implement now. So naturally JetBrains must be very careful what they decide to put in.

But yes we are talking about JetBrains here so I still have hope that they can pull it off because so far I can only share Thomas' frustration: this EAP isn't "cruising along" and the builds are definitively not "faster" for me. Some of the most distinguished JetBrains might have had direct experience with bloat but it won?t matter if the market pressure forces them. As part of that force I believe it is our duty to remind them to stay slim and keep up their good work.

My other 2 c

Jacques


0
Comment actions Permalink

huge jump in build numbers


This means nothing. It just numbering scheme chagned. Normally number
increases every night.


--

Best regards,
Maxim Shafirov
JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"



0
Comment actions Permalink

I wonder about that. Are you incrementing the build as a result of a nightly build that passes all the tests?

Jacques

0
Comment actions Permalink

We use cruise control system that runs all the test immediately after any
changes commited into VCS plus nightly builds that performs full packaging
like all-platform installations, scrambling etc. so we can discover any
problems there. It has nothing to number of tests passed.

--

Best regards,
Maxim Shafirov
JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Jacques Morel" <jacmorel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3600550.1059404742652.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I wonder about that. Are you incrementing the build as a result of a

nightly build that passes all the tests?
>

Jacques



0
Comment actions Permalink

I believe we are saying the same thing: You are performing other type of tests in the Nightly Build than in the Continuous Build. They might not be JUnit tests but they are "release readiness" testing nethertheless
I understand. We are doing the same thing.

Thanks for clarifying this, Maxim.

Jacques

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.