IDEA on the chopping block ...?

Came across this blog today:

http://www.freeroller.net/page/fate/20030614#idea_on_the_chopping_block

Having read it, I can see where he's coming from. Not about IDEA, and certainly not about the people who take part in the EAP (after all, I'm one of them), but about the system of voting used to add new features.

I myself, was astounded that Aspects polled more votes than Generics. I was even more astounded to see that AspectJ support was now cluttering up the interface.

Does anyone seriously believe that by this time next year, there will be more Java developers using Aspects, than Generics?!
I've yet to see a single job advertised that asks for experience in AspectJ. As the man said, at the moment, it's an experiment, while Generics are going into the next JDK for sure.

So how did this happen?

Well the problem is much something that Apple has to struggle with just as frequently; passion. Folk here are passionate about IDEA, and with good reason. They want it to be perfect. The problem is that the folk who take part in these early access programs, like to work on the bleeding edge. They don't mind experimenting with new technology. That's why they use AspectJ.
But we are certainly not representative of the other 3 million Java developers, many of whom will not be using aspects until they are rolled into the Java; they're also not going to use a tool that interferes with compiled bytecode (I have enough trouble convincing some companies to use any code that's been auto-generated!)

I understand that JetBrains want to add what we want, but there is a much bigger picture here, and from what I've seen over the last few builds, we're not looking at it.

For years now, hardcore Apple users have been screaming for a PDA. Apple has steadfastly refused to listen to them. Why? Because the hardcore represent a small minority who will certainly buy an Apple PDA ... but the other 20million Apple users probably won't.

And this is what JetBrains has to do. Look at the bigger picture. Make an effort to find out what Java developers really want, instead of using a voting system that is always going to return a skewed view of what the Java community is really doing.

I dunno who wrote this blog though; I reckon he's reading this, and is most probably English, since use of the word 'sh*te', is something we guard very jealously... :)

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Rayz wrote:
>

So how did this happen?

Well the problem is much something that Apple has to struggle

> with just as frequently; passion. Folk here are passionate about
> IDEA, and with good reason. They want it to be perfect. The problem
> Is that the folk who take part in these early access programs, like

to work on the bleeding edge. They don't mind experimenting with

> new technology. That's why they use AspectJ.

But we are certainly not representative of the other 3 million

> Java developers, many of whom will not be using aspects until they
> are rolled into the Java; they're also not going to use a tool that
> interferes with compiled bytecode (I have enough trouble convincing
> some companies to use any code that's been auto-generated!)

I think one of the questions here that needs to be addressed is whether
IntelliJ Idea is now big enough to create their own demand. Do you
think the demand for Visual Basic was so high amoungst programmers that
Microsoft had to implement it? No, Microsoft created the demand by
creating a tool that solved peoples problems and by virtue of being
large enough that people felt comfortable in making the switch from
their existing languages.

I suspect that IntelliJ isn't big enough on their own to create their
own demand. Fortunately there are other players pushing this stuff.
Maybe this will be enough.

Regards,

Glen Stampoultzis
http://www.freeroller.net/page/~gstamp




0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

I understand that JetBrains want to add what we want, but there is a much
bigger picture here, and from what I've seen over the last few builds,
we're not looking at it.


I'm sure you trust them more than that! Do you really think they'd put in
features only because we voted for them if they didn't find them useful? As
empowered as we feel through the EAP program, let's not forget who owns
that company and who got IDEA where it is today.

In fact, I'd bet they use the voting system to see what features to
investigate rather than what to develop.

Not everybody is happy about every feature IDEA has to offer (have a look at
the thread about the commander to see how a benign piece of functionality
can be viewed as a threat to IDEA's quality), but I don't see that as being
a requirement. And some people might bitch about almost everything
(http://www.freeroller.net/page/fate/20030610?catname=General), so I guess
it'd be impossible to make everybody happy. :)

And this is what JetBrains has to do. Look at the bigger picture. Make an
effort to find out what Java developers really want, instead of using a
voting system that is always going to return a skewed view of what the
Java community is really doing.


Almost nobody really wanted refactorings when IntelliJ started developing
an IDE with refactorings support. In fact few people really knew what they
meant, let alone consider them one of the primary features when evaluating
an IDE.

I don't think it's about what most Java developers want (that's what
Borland's there for :), I think it's about finding out how to simplify the
lives of those developers in ways nobody thought of before. I think it's
about proposing new and better ways of solving the problems everybody's so
busy with that they can't look for better solutions.

And for that, the folks that like to work on the bleeding edge and to
experiment with new technology can be a genuine source of information.
That's what I think the EAP and the voting system are really about.

As for the AspectJ stuff people seem to be so concerned about (and, for the
record, I voted for it), the mere fact that they develop it so that other
AOP frameworks can be plugged in tells you that they ARE looking at the big
picture. AspectJ might not be the perfect solution, and it might be dead
next year, but IDEA is ready for AOP, and that's what really matters.


I dunno who wrote this blog though; I reckon he's reading this, and is
most probably English, since use of the word 'sh*te', is something we
guard very jealously... :)


You'll find the answer in the upper right corner of the web page, right
above the calendar.

Andrei

0

It's my blog, and while it is over the top (that's the point of the blog, to be honest), I think there is some measure of truth and honesty in there. Most of the old timers around here probably remember me as the person who always whined and moaned all the time on the mailing lists!

While I realise my style is rather offensive, in the case of the IDEA rant, it's definitely born out of love and concern rather than scorn and mockery. I do feel (and I think many others do too), that a certain something has gone missing. However, I'm also pragmatic enough to realise that living in the past doesn't do anyone any good, and that times change. In the end I don't doubt that IDEA will be the best it can be for the greatest number of people. I'm just frustrated that I seem to be rather opposed to what that great number of people want!

PS I'm not English/British, but I did/do spend a lot of time there ;)

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

+While I realise my style is rather offensive, in the case of the IDEA rant, it's definitely born out of love and concern rather than scorn and mockery. +

Actually I thought it was pretty amusing .... :)

However, I'm also pragmatic enough to realise that living in the past doesn't do anyone any good, and that times change.

I don't think it's a matter of living in the past; more the case of doing the right thing for the future.

In the end I don't doubt that IDEA will be the best it can be for the greatest number of people. I'm just frustrated that I seem to be rather opposed to what that great number of people want!

Aaah, that's the problem I have. Are we sure that this is what the great number of people want. As someone else pointed out, perhaps IDEA is not being aimed at the vast majority of Java developers (an assumption I was making).

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

I think one of the questions here that needs to be addressed is whether IntelliJ Idea is now big enough to create their own demand.

I don't think so, no.

+Do you think the demand for Visual Basic was so high amoungst programmers that Microsoft had to implement it? +

Yes, it was as I remember. When VB first appeared, Microsoft already had a development toolkit, but from one of the reviews I remember, their developers were screaming for an easier, faster way to develop Windows applications.

I suspect that IntelliJ isn't big enough on their own to create their own demand. Fortunately there are other players pushing this stuff. Maybe this will be enough.

We shall see ....




0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

For the UI Designer, I think there would be a demand for it, as there are people working on swing applications.

For aspects and generics, are they mature enough to be use in commerical applications?

0

Well the problem is much something that Apple has to
struggle with just as frequently; passion. Folk here
are passionate about IDEA, and with good reason. They
want it to be perfect. The problem is that the folk
who take part in these early access programs, like to
work on the bleeding edge. They don't mind
experimenting with new technology. That's why they
use AspectJ.
But we are certainly not representative of the other
3 million Java developers, many of whom will not be
using aspects until they are rolled into the Java;
they're also not going to use a tool that interferes
with compiled bytecode (I have enough trouble
convincing some companies to use any code that's been
auto-generated!)

I think the JetBrains people are seeing the big picture quite well. If you remember the discussions about the UI designer one year ago, a lot of people didn't like the idea of an UI designer because most of us prefer to have the total control over our code.
JetBrains more or less ignored those negative voices and now we have an UI designer. I think this is mostly because those other developers cried for one.
And for the AspectJ integration: Since Eclipse, one of IDEA's competitors, will most likely have it in the next release, it's only natural IDEA will have it, too, so that those that want to use AspectJ will not be tempted to change to Eclipse.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

+I think the JetBrains people are seeing the big picture quite well. If you remember the discussions about the UI designer one year ago, a lot of people didn't like the idea of an UI designer because most of us prefer to have the total control over our code. JetBrains more or less ignored those negative voices and now we have an UI designer. +

That's not really how it's turned out though is it? JetBrains more or less ignored the negative voices, and looking at the threads here, folk are still complaining about the lack of code visibility AND the bytecode hacking thing.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

For the UI Designer, I think there would be a demand for it, as there are people working on swing applications.

I think there is demand for a UI designer, I'm not convinced that it's for the one that's actually going into IDEA though.

For aspects and generics, are they mature enough to be use in commerical applications?

I think generics will be all over the place as soon as they appear in the JDK (1.5 I think); Java developers have been screaming for generics for so long.

Aspects? I'm not so sure. I think we're still quite a way from seeing them used extensively; if at all.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Rayz wrote:

I myself, was astounded that Aspects polled more votes than Generics.
I was even more astounded to see that AspectJ support was now
cluttering up the interface.

Does anyone seriously believe that by this time next year, there will
be more Java developers using Aspects, than Generics?!


I don't think voting works quite like that. It seems to me that votes
don't reflect our real priorities -- they reflect the way we would like
to change what we believe other people's priorities are. They are a
way of making sure the developers know that there are people who care
about a specific feature or bug.

We all know generics will eventually be in IDEA. It's going to be part
of Java 1.5, and everyone knows a lot of people will want to use it, and
so it will have to be in IDEA approximately by the time Java 1.5 is
out. No need to spend votes on that.

AspectJ, on the other hand, could very well be ignored by the IDEA team.
IDEA would easily survive without AspectJ support, so those who really
want it will make sure they vote for it. Especially before IntelliJ
actually committed to making it part of Aurora -- I'm not sure but I
don't think the number of votes has increased very much since then,
since the battle was already won, so to speak.

And when it comes to bugs: We all know that most or all serious bugs
will be fixed by IntelliJ by the time the final release is out, so
there's no need to spend lots of votes on those items trying to make
sure IntelliJ will fix them. Everyone already knows that these issues
are very important. Therefore the top 20 (sorted by number of votes)
only contains feature requests, no bug reports.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Hani is an old-timer here on EAP, and at least for me, a respectable person. Hani is the type of guy that doesn't take anything for granted: he has the ability to separate what everyone needs from what HE needs. To separate marketing needs from real function, and you all should have already noticed that from reading his blog. This is a valuable ability.

By the way, Hani, we miss your comments here on EAP. You've been absent lately.

Unfortunately, he's painfully accurate. The AspectJ integration is pissing off many people and I don't see any reason for it except to match Eclipse (i.e, marketing). Subversion integration, while nice, sure is not priority, and better left to plugin writers. Maven? Search for maven here and you'll see my comments below Hani's.

GUI builder? I wouldn't care less. However, I recognize that there are people out there who need it. But I don't like the current state of IDEA GUI builder.

My only hope is to trust the vision of Eugene Belyaev. The last few EAP builds had lots of issues, but that's somewhat excected due the huge number of (unnecessary) new features. Let's see if they can clean up the mess before too long.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

"Rayz" <jiveadmin@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:25277602.1055693460489.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

+I think the JetBrains people are seeing the big picture
quite well. If you remember the discussions about the UI
designer one year ago, a lot of people didn't like the idea
of an UI designer because most of us prefer to have the total
control over our code. JetBrains more or less ignored those
negative voices and now we have an UI designer. +

>

That's not really how it's turned out though is it? JetBrains
more or less ignored the negative voices, and looking at the
threads here, folk are still complaining about the lack of
code visibility AND the bytecode hacking thing.


There's a difference between "ignoring the negative voices" and "hearing the
negative voices but disagreeing with them".


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

There's a difference between "ignoring the negative voices" and "hearing the negative voices but disagreeing with them".

"Ignoring" or "hearing and disagreeing". Doesn't really matter what you call it, the end result is the same; a product that your customers don't actually want ...

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user


"Rayz" <jiveadmin@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:32150259.1055661866211.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Yes, it was as I remember. When VB first appeared, Microsoft already had a

development toolkit, but from one of the reviews I remember, their
developers were screaming for an easier, faster way to develop Windows
applications.

And Borland was late just about one year with Delphi 1.0 It was too late,
app developers adhered to VB. Even if it sucked big time comparing to
Delphi. With shows again, that thousands of lemmings can be stupid. No
offence on VB developers, it were mostly the management who made a decision
about IDE. Even now it is very hard to find Delphi job.

But doing as general public thinks is right to do, may lead us to
stagnation.


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

To IDEA team:
Please make sure that the original vision stays. For me the IDEA has more than enough features already but the ones that I most often use tend not to work properly (CVS integration as an example)

So instead of adding new features (and bugs) correct the old ones first.

Please?

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user


"Hani Suleiman" <hani@formicary.net> wrote in message news:14635319.1055651920573.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

It's my blog, and while it is over the top (that's the point of the blog, to be honest), I think there is some measure of truth

and honesty in there. Most of the old timers around here probably remember me as the person who always whined and moaned all the
time on the mailing lists!
>

While I realise my style is rather offensive, in the case of the IDEA rant, it's definitely born out of love and concern rather

than scorn and mockery. I do feel (and I think many others do too), that a certain something has gone missing. However, I'm also
pragmatic enough to realise that living in the past doesn't do anyone any good, and that times change. In the end I don't doubt that
IDEA will be the best it can be for the greatest number of people. I'm just frustrated that I seem to be rather opposed to what that
great number of people want!

Well, first of all, you're not alone. It's rather funny and sad at the same time to see how different
people are trying to prove/convince/demonstrate that the majority can and is wrong almost certainly.
I found myself doing just that over a last couple of weeks in another group, although rather then use
lemmings I prefer to compare with the medieval times when the vast majority of most educated
people were totally convinced that the Earth is flat, which is less offensive (I hope :-).
It is indeed frustrating that we have to do this fight alone every time. Do we really have to, I wonder?
I also think that the only way to overcome the resistance and religious stupidity is to propose/show
something better rather than just spill the anger on everything. So what do you have in mind? What's
your vision of things to come?

>

PS I'm not English/British, but I did/do spend a lot of time there ;)


I'm not either, I just live there :)

--Oleg


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

For me the IDEA has more than enough features already but the ones that I most often use tend not to work properly (CVS integration as an example)


This is Early Access Program, which means that you are allowed use the software as it is
developed and there are SUPPOSED TO BE some bugs/work in progress. The last released
version is IDEA 3.04 which is pretty stable.

So instead of adding new features (and bugs) correct the old ones first.


In the future release of Ariadna everything should work properly.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

PS I'm not English/British, but I did/do spend a lot of time there ;)

My mistake ... :)

Since you may have been influential in shaping IDEA, I'd like to hear what you think should be done to get Aurora back on course (assuming that it is off-course).

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Can you guys hear yourselves?

"I don't need A so IDEA shouldn't include it", "I can't figure out B so IDEA shouldn't include that either".

If the majority of they people who vote, vote for a feature, perhaps you should get you act together and learn it?!

IDEA is only this great a product because they push the envelope, try bleeding edge stuff and has the courage to include them in the released product.

I'm sure the IDEA team is wise enough to only include the features they think work well in the final product.

It could be that they know a little bit more about implementing IDEs then you do?!

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Rayz wrote:
> I think generics will be all over the place ..
> Aspects? I'm not so sure. ..

Beeing a big YAGNI and DTSSTCPW fan - *1 -, I tend to refactor to
things, rather than introduce them up front.

That's why I put Generics, Patterns and AOP in the same bag of tricks,
as refactoring targets (see *2). Depending on the code, I'll use one of
them to remove duplication. In that context - refactorings -, AOP is
important. Depending on the code you'll have to write/maintain, you'll
see more use in generics or AOP.
If I were to be dropped on a desert island with only one of them, I'd
choose AOP without hesitation. Generics is syntactic sugar. It's sweet,
but it can spoil you (eg. writing frameworks before you need them).

Alain


*1 :
Hani, I can't wait to see the colour of your bile about XP practices.
Such a target, you can't possibly miss it :).

*2 :
An interesting book in progress : "Refactoring to patterns" (free draft
in pdf)
http://www.industriallogic.com/xp/refactoring/

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

I also think that the only way to overcome the
resistance and religious stupidity is to propose/show
something better rather than just spill the anger on
everything.


Reminds me of the last building I worked in. It had these 'motivational posters' dotted around the place. Basically they were 'famous' quotes writ large. Most were pretty anodyne but the one that stuck a chord with me was...Vince.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Can you guys hear yourselves?

I could ask you the same question .... :)

"I don't need A so IDEA shouldn't include it", "I can't figure out B so IDEA shouldn't include that either".

You've completely missed the point. From looking through this thread, even folk who won't use the GUI Builder, can understand why it has been included. The problem is how it has been implemented. If folk have a problem with bytecode hacking or whatever, then they should say so.
What folk are worried about is the reasoning behind some of these esoteric features.

If the majority of they people who vote, vote for a feature, perhaps you should get you act together and learn it?!

Good argument. If enough people vote for ripping out the interface and replacing it with VI, that would be something that will sell to the whole Java community would it?

If I build software and folk come back to me and say they're having trouble using it, I'd be out of business if my reaction was:

'...perhaps you should get you act together and learn it?!'

.. but since you appear to have that luxury, I'm very happy for you ...

Is the voting system really doing the right thing by IDEA? That's what the blog was asking, and I think that it is a worthy question. Are the chaps at JetBrains paying too much attention to it? I imagine that they want to sell this IDE to developers outside this forum, so maybe we need wider input from everyday Java developers.

It could be that they know a little bit more about implementing IDEs then you do?!

Successful product development is not about making assumptions, it's about actually getting out there and finding what your potential customers need. You can't do that from taking votes from bleeding-edge developers who like to experiment.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

If I were to be dropped on a desert island with only one of them, I'd
choose AOP without hesitation. Generics is syntactic sugar. It's sweet,
but it can spoil you (eg. writing frameworks before you need them).


And what would you choose if you were "dropped" in Africa ?

Guillaume


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

+I also think that the only way to overcome the resistance and religious stupidity is to propose/show
something better rather than just spill the anger on everything.+

Folk have been suggesting improvements all over the place; but I think that a lot of this new stuff would be better off as plug-ins (like the GUI Builder), if the architecture would support it.

Perhaps we're not taking advantage of IDEA's extensibility, as much as the Eclipse group do ....

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Can you guys hear yourselves?
I could ask you the same question .... :)


I hope so, I'm yelling pretty loudly :)

+"I don't need A so IDEA shouldn't include it", "I
can't figure out B so IDEA shouldn't include that
either".+

You've completely missed the point. From looking
through this thread, even folk who won't use the GUI
Builder, can understand why it has been included. The
problem is how it has been implemented. If folk have
a problem with bytecode hacking or whatever, then
they should say so.
What folk are worried about is the reasoning behind
some of these esoteric features.


Or... they could not use it, just like I'm properly not gonna use the GUI-builder, as I mostly code server-side.
So, I didn't vote for it - simple, right?

+If the majority of they people who vote, vote for
a feature, perhaps you should get you act together
and learn it?!+

Good argument. If enough people vote for ripping out
the interface and replacing it with VI, that would be
something that will sell to the whole Java community
would it?

Thanks, oh sarcasm :) Perhaps you should have a little more faith in the people who participate in the EAP. It could be they know as much about developing software as you do.

If I build software and folk come back to me and say
they're having trouble using it, I'd be out of
business if my reaction was:

+*'...perhaps you should get you act together and
learn it?!'*+

.. but since you appear to have that luxury, I'm very
happy for you ...


So when we changed paradigm from structured programming to OOP you sat on your butt, waiting for it to get simple? Are you still sitting?


Successful product development is not about making
assumptions, it's about actually getting out there
and finding what your potential customers need. You
can't do that from taking votes from bleeding-edge
developers who like to experiment.


Really? Define successful.

Who do you think IntelliJ has in mind as consumers for their product? Joe Blow or serious Java developers, wanting to use new stuff, trying new things and developing on the bleeding edge.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> And what would you choose if you were "dropped" in Africa ?

Jennifer Lopez

Alain

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Jennifer Lopez


Oh my...
What a good choice !!!
Do you know her personnaly ? ;)
She really came with your ?
Lucky you are !!!
LOL :-D

Guillaume

PS: sorry, it's so... off-topic


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Or... they could not use it, just like I'm properly not gonna use the GUI-builder, as I mostly code server-side. So, I didn't vote for it - simple, right?

Not quite, no. The project manager for one thing; really don't have a choice. The GUI Builder? Many folk would like to use it, but due to the way it is implemented, cannot.

Now while many folk here are probably happy with having IDEA fiddling with the compiled bytecode, I'm not sure how the rest of the Java Community will feel about it.

Thanks, oh sarcasm :) Perhaps you should have a little more faith in the people who participate in the EAP. It could be they know as much about developing software as you do.

I have tremendous faith in them; the problem is, they represent a tiny fraction of the Java community.

So when we changed paradigm from structured programming to OOP you sat on your butt, waiting for it to get simple? Are you still sitting?

Mmmm ..you seem to be making up arguments to suit your point of view. No-one here has said that AspectJ should be left out because it's too hard to learn. I think the point being made, should the effort be spent on it, when at best, it's an experimental language.

Who do you think IntelliJ has in mind as consumers for their product? Joe Blow or serious Java developers, wanting to use new stuff, trying new things and developing on the bleeding edge.

I'm not actually sure you know what a 'serious Java developer' is, if that's what you think the vast majority of them spend there time doing. .... :-/



0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

+Or... they could not use it, just like I'm
properly not gonna use the GUI-builder, as I mostly
code server-side. So, I didn't vote for it - simple,
right?+

Not quite, no. The project manager for one thing;
really don't have a choice. The GUI Builder? Many
folk would like to use it, but due to the way it is
implemented, cannot.

Now while many folk here are probably happy with
having IDEA fiddling with the compiled bytecode, I'm
not sure how the rest of the Java Community will feel
about it.

So? Are we dicussing the Java Community or IDEA?
If we discuss Java, perhaps you should attack the JCP regarding Generics, and not IDEA for supporting it? While you are at it, could you slap the guy who insisted on octals in Java, and ask him why they didn't just use 0o12 (like 0xF1), and 0b0101 for that matter?

+Thanks, oh sarcasm :) Perhaps you should have a
little more faith in the people who participate in
the EAP. It could be they know as much about
developing software as you do.+

I have tremendous faith in them; the problem is, they
represent a tiny fraction of the Java community.

And YOU know better?!

Mmmm ..you seem to be making up arguments to suit
your point of view. No-one here has said that AspectJ
should be left out because it's too hard to learn. I
think the point being made, should the effort be
spent on it, when at best, it's an experimental
language.

I'm using an analogy.

"when at best, it's an experimental language" - in your humble opinion, I take it?

+Who do you think IntelliJ has in mind as consumers
for their product? Joe Blow or serious Java
developers, wanting to use new stuff, trying new
things and developing on the bleeding edge.+

I'm not actually sure you know what a 'serious Java
developer' is, if that's what you think the vast
majority of them spend there time doing. .... :-/


Don't you fiddle with new techology? Shouldn't your IDE support that?

If you don't try new stuff, how are you going to better you product, your process or yourself? Don't fear change, embrace it! -- my god, now I sound like a XP-commercial ;)

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:24:04 +0000, Marcus Brito wrote:

Subversion integration, while nice, sure is not
priority, and better left to plugin writers. Maven? Search for maven here
and you'll see my comments below Hani's.


As for subversion theres already two plugins - svn-up and and jsvn, I need
to get the jsvn idea stuff in the main branch so we can release it thou.

--
...turn to the light - don't be frightened by the shadows it creates,
...turn to the light - turning away could be a terrible mistake
...dream theater - the great debate


0

请先登录再写评论。