Re: Maybe No Need for a WOBuilder Replacement?
Re: Maybe No Need for a WOBuilder Replacement?
- Subject: Re: Maybe No Need for a WOBuilder Replacement?
- From: Miguel Arroz <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:11:29 +0100
Hi!
Well, I'm not replying to this post specifically, but the thread
is too complicated, so I picked up a random mail! :)
If I sound a bit rude, I'm sorry, you know english is not my main
language.
From my point of view, this is a very simple matter: shut up and
do what Apple says. This is not a "blind apple fan" thing, it's reality.
Look at Apple's history. They switched from 68K to PowerPC. Then
from classic OS 9 to OS X. Then (or before?) from ObjC to Java on WO.
Then from PowerPC to Intel. Now from xCode to Eclipse.
Being portuguese and living in Portugal, far far away from Apple
(not just geographically, our Apple representation is kind of a bad
joke), I'm very used to this kind of stuff. I can't communicate with
Apple. Although I work at an office that represents a relevant income
for Apple IMC Portugal every year, I simply can't reach Apple (that's
why I love WWDCs, it's the only week in the year I can actually talk
to Apple people). This is to say: I think on Apple as those guys that
are on their little bubble and do what they think is the best. You
either like it, and adapt, or you don't, and go buy PCs.
With WO is the same thing. Apple deprecated their tools, and said
to us "move to eclipse". You have three options:
1) Do what Apple says (tm).
2) Stay on Apple tools, but not doing what Apple says. You will be
totally screwed in a few years, trust me.
3) You move to another technology.
From my point of view, 2) is not an option. Although I'm young,
I've been a Mac user since 1987, and I *do* know that, if you don't
adapt to Apple's decisions and wishes, you will have serious
problems. You are not avoiding the cliff, you are just walking
towards it a bit slower. 3) is not an option either, because I had
decided that I would not do WebApps for a living unless I really had
to, until I met WO. And there's still no other tech that I think is
good enough. This is like an old alternative portuguese radio, called
XFM, that was loved by a lot of people. Someone said "when XFM goes
off, I'll have some radio tuners to sell." That is my opinion about
WO: it's either WO or desktop apps for me, if I can decide. XFM died
many years ago, WO is still here, so don't waste your time.
So, all it's left is 1). I like Apple stuff, it's the best stuff
around. I don't like Apple as company, and I don't like some Apple
attitudes. Bad for me. I still want to use Apple. So, shut up and do
what Apple says. There's no other way.
So, i recommend you: either choose option 3, or 1. 2 is not the
way. Stop wasting your time saying "oh, how do I love the graphical
bindings" and start getting used to Eclipse. And trust me: it's not
bad at all. It's actually very good. Much much better than xCode will
ever be. Just buy some RAM.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2007/09/04, at 22:37, Galen Rhodes wrote:
I appreciate that you weren't trying to antagonize anyone. I too
have a problem with people misunderstanding my slightly strange
attempts at humor. :P
However, that being said, that is a lot of how it does feel. When
you become very use to doing things a certain way and then suddenly
everyone is telling to give it up and try something else then you
tend to feel a little put out. Especially when you really had no
problems with the way you were doing it in the first place.
--
Galen Rhodes
email@hidden
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
For the record, I was trying to lend no comfort (cold or
otherwise) by suggesting inline bindings. The tools are what they
are. People were complaining about one aspect of the tool, and I
offer inline bindings as a suggestion of what made that particular
aspect of the tool workable for me, with the suggestion to try it
and see if it had the same effect for you. I don't think anyone
is calling anyone else slow or stupid or behind the times if they
don't like the eclipse component editor. And certainly no one is
trying to shove the eclipse component editor (which is apparently
veal) down a vegetarian's (which is apparently the entire
webobjects community) throat ;-p. But it is the accepted tool we
have to work with, so it's nice to share tips about what helps and
what has worked. No antagonism intended.
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
That's the problem! It IS all about personal preference. No two
people write code the same way. Just as people are individuals
in their preference for color, clothes, music, whatever, people
have preferences for how they write code! A good number of us
became very use to working with WOBuilder and, yes, even got use
to it's many quirks. What's faster for one person may very well
be slower for others simply because we're use to working in a
different way. For some of us who were use to WOBuilder, having
to use Eclipse is like going from JEdit back to using VI. And
telling us to try changing the paradigm even more by switching to
inline bindings is cold comfort. You may as well be telling a
lifelong vegetarian to just shut up and try the veal.
--
Galen Rhodes
email@hidden
On Sep 4, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
- the ability to see, in a graphical way, what components are
contained in other components, what they are, and (for simple
things like conditionals), what their main binding is. Using
WOBuilder with a complex component I can see what I need in
less than a second, while it sometimes takes minutes in Eclipse
to do the same thing. Although viewing tables is much easier
this way, that's not the important thing. I don't need to see
how the page will look-- I want to see the component hierarchy
in a graphical way.
Just personal preference on this one ... I find the exact
opposite. We don't do almost any table layout, and opening a
complex css-laid-out component in WOBuilder appears to me to be
unintelligible. Component editor in Eclipse shows both an
outline view of your components as well as the collapsible HTML
editor with rollovers that show the span of each tag. But this
has been debated to death, so I'm leaving this at "personal
preference."
- the ability to cut or copy a whole group of elements and
paste them somewhere else, bindings and all.
This could definitely be added into component editor ... I can
pretty easily, I think, track the associated wod bindings when
you cut HTML and autocut/copy related wod entries.
ms
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40thissmallworld.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40bluecollarsoftware.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40guiamac.com
This email sent to email@hidden
Miguel Arroz
http://www.terminalapp.net
http://www.ipragma.com
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden