NetBeans 5.0 Release Candidate Available

Home

News: NetBeans 5.0 Release Candidate Available

  1. NetBeans 5.0 Release Candidate Available (96 messages)

    NetBeans IDE 5.0 Release Candidate is available to download from:

    http://www.netbeans.info/downloads/download.php?type=5.0rc1

    Highlighted Features of Version 5.0:
        * Matisse GUI Builder
        * New Support for Writing NetBeans Modules
        * NetBeans Platform
        * Developer Collaboration for Remote Cooperation
        * NetBeans Profiler Works with Unmodified JDK
        * Redesigned CVS Support with Focus on UI
        * Deploy to Additional J2EE Servers (JBoss, Weblogic)
        * Support for Struts and JSF, SQL Editor
        * Improved Working with Web Services, XML Editor Boosts
        * Many Java Editor Enhancements
        * Nine New Refactorings
        * Debugging Enhancements incl. Ant Debugger
        * Various Usability Improvements in All Areas of the IDE

    For more information on the NetBeans 5.0 Release visit:

        * 5.0 Release Page
        * 5.0 Docs & Support
        * Flash demo of NetBeans 5.0 beta (features correspond with the RC1)

    Thanks and we are looking forward to your feedback. Enjoy!

    Threaded Messages (96)

  2. I downloaded a Beta a while ago and love it. The Matisse GUI builder is great. I understand that 'Netbeans.Next' is due sometime in '06 and it will support EJB3. Don't know any dates though.

    Mike
  3. Wonderful stuffA[ Go to top ]

    Although I have been using Eclipse exclusively for years now, the new Netbeans is absolutely wonderful, it really is a quantum leap. Matisse as the previous poster has pointed out, is a very good example of a ui builder really well done and the EJB part (although EJB2) simply is excellent.

    There are downsides however as well, there are no visual tools for JSP and JSF (hint, merge Netbeans6 with Studio Creator 2 ;-) )
    and the number of supported application servers is really short. But anyone who does serious swing or EJB development should have a serious look at it.
  4. Which app servers do you miss?[ Go to top ]

    NetBeans supports Sun App Server (RC1 is available as bundle with 8.2), JBoss, Weblogic, Websphere (alpha quality) and the preview versions of Java EE 5 builds support Glassfish. Which other servers do you miss? If anybody is interested in developing support for other app servers, here is a handy tutorial:

    http://platform.netbeans.org/tutorials/nbm-server-plugin.html
  5. Which app servers do you miss?[ Go to top ]

    NetBeans supports Sun App Server (RC1 is available as bundle with 8.2), JBoss, Weblogic, Websphere (alpha quality) and the preview versions of Java EE 5 builds support Glassfish. Which other servers do you miss? If anybody is interested in developing support for other app servers, here is a handy tutorial:http://platform.netbeans.org/tutorials/nbm-server-plugin.html

    Jetty, Jonas, Geronimo just to name a few... ;-)
  6. App servers[ Go to top ]

    Well, you know what you can do if you really want it... write it ;) I don't know the plans yet, but next release should focus on Java EE again so I guess more will come.
  7. EJB3[ Go to top ]

    Just wanted to mention that EJB3 support is being prepared, daily builds are available and work with Glassfish. See more info here:

    http://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/netbeans

    Word of warning - these builds are early access... so you might see an exception or two. Additional features appear in these builds regularly.
  8. Too big toolbar. :)[ Go to top ]

    Great!

    A small remark :)
    How can i set small icons in the toollbar? I don't like a big buttons there.
    I have 15' notebook and this big toollbar really annoy me.
  9. Too big toolbar. :)[ Go to top ]

    Rigth button -> Small Toolbar Icons. :)
  10. Toolbar size[ Go to top ]

    As someone else mentioned, if you right click a toolbar, you can set the icon size - or even just hide all the toolbars completely.

    If you're really crazy for screen real estate (I am), add the following to <code>netbeans_default_options</code> in <code>$NB_HOME/etc/netbeans.conf</code>:

    -J-Dnetbeans.winsys.statusLine.in.menuBar=true


    and the statusbar will be to the right of the main menu in the top of the window.

    I posted a few other interesting line-switch tweaks for NetBeans in my blog a couple of months ago.
  11. More screen real-estate[ Go to top ]

    If you're *really* crazy for real-estate (I am) you can make the Navigator & Projects & Files & Runtime windows into pop-ups. Up in the top right corner of each there's a little rectangle with an arrow pointing left; click that and they turn into little squares on the left side, mouse over them and there they are. Gives you an incredibly clean-looking GUI -Tim
  12. NetBeans 5.0 Release Candidate Available[ Go to top ]

    Now NetBeans is a mature product. It is great.
  13. NetBeans IDE 5.0 Release Candidate is available to download

    This excellent. Just one small complaint though... from the NetBeans site:

    "Note:If you edit the Project Properties for a project that was created in NetBeans IDE 4.1 or earlier in NetBeans IDE 5.0, the project will no longer work in the earlier NetBeans IDE versions."

    This can be a real problem. It means that teams of developers have to upgrade all at once, and makes evaluations tricky. NetBeans project files are XML, and I would have thought that this should have made backwards compatibility easy; just add new features in a new namespace that can then be ignored by earlier versions. It would have been wiser to allow the full handling of projects at least one version back. This would make the transition to a new NetBeans version far easier.
  14. Great![ Go to top ]

    Yes, yes. Very nice.

    Too bad that GroupLayout (aka Matise) will NOT be included in Java 6.0 which is yet to be relased and will take years to be widley distributed. What's another layout?

    Can we lobby the EG somehow. Vote?

    We have everything else, Synth L&F, SwingWorker, Network Launcher in JDK.

    .V

    ps: but JavaScript is a part of JDK 6.0. ??
  15. Adding a layout manager[ Go to top ]

    To an application is just a snap in, although having group layout and form layout additionally in the JDK would be great, but it is not like you cannot bundle it yourself in your jar.
  16. GroupLayout[ Go to top ]

    According to Roman Strobl, the NetBeans RC automatically includes GroupLayout in your application jar.
  17. GroupLayout and JDK[ Go to top ]

    We were really trying to get GroupLayout into JDK 6, it was just too late for it. For more information, read this interview:

    http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Interviews/violet_pavek_qa.html
  18. GroupLayout and JDK[ Go to top ]

    We were really trying to get GroupLayout into JDK 6, it was just too late for it.

    6.0 is in alpha yet, even not in beta. It's only a few classes for the layout.

    This would be tragic that C# 2 which shiped in Oct last year has "BackGround" worker and good layouts, but when I make a Matise app, I have to ship the extra.

    This means that in JDK 7 which would be released in ... '07, '08.... and then add 2 years for users to switch JRE to '09 and '10 and I could start shiping light weight applications.
    This is inexusable. The code for grouplayout is allready seperated out.

    To late for what?
    You guys just asked for EG feedback to the proposed changes.
    Here is feedback. What do you guys do w/ the feedback?


    .V
  19. Re: GroupLayout and JDK[ Go to top ]

    What is the big deal about this? Why do people keep harping about it?

    I don't see the JGoodies folks yammering about not including their jars in the JDK. But GroupLayout is Different, it's Special, and it should be annointed immediately!

    I mean, gee, why don't they just bundle the entire Net Beans framework in to the JDK, that way I can easily deploy NB modules too.

    I'm sure I can think up other absurd examples, but I do not understand why everyone fixates on GroupLayout. Every time it's mentioned, this comes up.
  20. Re: GroupLayout and JDK[ Go to top ]

    What is the big deal about this?

    jGoodies does not have the right license, and GroupLayout (matise) is Sun, so good licene.
    If more of Netbeans makes it into JDK, then the thiner my app is, so your idea for more is good also. (Like who was asking for JavaScript to be included.... but not include Layout? Move Javascript to 7.0). Some people will use IntliJ or Eclipse.... or Vi.

    We need a Layout in the near future that is on the level of what C# Visual Studio Express 2005 has since last year/Oct.
    Or just use X-Develop IDE.

    Someday somone will do a gap anaylsis of C# 2005 vs Java 6, and good to be ready.


    hth,
    .V
  21. GroupLayout and JDK[ Go to top ]

    Here is feedback. What do you guys do w/ the feedback?

    This is what I did: sent your feedback to JDK team.
  22. Roman[ Go to top ]

    Thanks for the excellent feedback you provide in this forum here.
    Netbeans5 is indeed an impressive release.
    Some minor sidequestions.
    The JSF support as is, is currently rather basic. Are there any plans in the immediate future to get the Studio Creator2 functionality into the Netbeans base, or to get the J2EE handling of Netbeans (aka Session Bean handling) into Creator?
  23. Roman[ Go to top ]

    Thanks for the excellent feedback you provide in this forum here.Netbeans5 is indeed an impressive release.Some minor sidequestions. The JSF support as is, is currently rather basic. Are there any plans in the immediate future to get the Studio Creator2 functionality into the Netbeans base, or to get the J2EE handling of Netbeans (aka Session Bean handling) into Creator?

    I agree. I think there should be some attempt to merge Creator, Netbeans, and even Java Studio Enterprise. It would be great to have one IDE with all of those features. There's already alot of overlap. I know the argument is that Creator and Studio Enterprise have different target audiences, but I still think all of these features could be made available through a single (great) tool.
  24. Roman[ Go to top ]

    I think there should be some attempt to merge Creator, Netbeans, and even Java Studio Enterprise.

    We're moving in that direction. Check out this blog entry from Bob Brewin, chief architect of Sun's developer tools: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/brewin?entry=the_three_sea_shells
  25. Another question[ Go to top ]

    Given that it has been a while since I last used netbeans.
    I can remember there was some kind of mount facility which allowed platform agnostic filesystem mount and then to have those mount points be put into projects.

    This feature seems to be gone, or am I missing something here.
  26. Project system[ Go to top ]

    The project system was redesigned, so the original "mount" feature is not there anymore. Since NetBeans 4.0 ant is used as basis for the project system. You can do cool things with it like change any target so you can extend the ant script to run action as a part of your build. You can do build, run, test and deploy the project outside the IDE from command line - there's no lock-in. Project sharing is also simplier, because you just put the ant script into the versioning system. If you still want to use the mount paradigma, I believe there's some plug-in which does that... somebody who knows where to find it can give you a link. But I personally don't see a reason why to use it.
  27. Roman[ Go to top ]

    I think there should be some attempt to merge Creator, Netbeans, and even Java Studio Enterprise.
    We're moving in that direction. Check out this blog entry from Bob Brewin, chief architect of Sun's developer tools: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/brewin?entry=the_three_sea_shells

    I think the choice of having Creator2 only being a service
    business facade consumer is fatal, to my experience no
    business programmer only consumes services it is rather normal
    that every programmer of the target group of creator2 from time to time has to code the business facades, more often
    they are a requirement which have to be codet by the same
    person who also does the ui coding.

    It would be good to merge the Creator2 which is slowly becoming a really excellent tool with ejb and orm offerings.
    which do not only work as consumers of those things.
    I think Oracle got this right in the first instance by producing an IDE which tries to cover all three stages of such applications, while Sun is wrong in their assumption.
  28. Roman[ Go to top ]

    I think there should be some attempt to merge Creator, Netbeans, and even Java Studio Enterprise.
    We're moving in that direction. Check out this blog entry from Bob Brewin, chief architect of Sun's developer tools: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/brewin?entry=the_three_sea_shells
    I think the choice of having Creator2 only being a servicebusiness facade consumer is fatal, to my experience nobusiness programmer only consumes services it is rather normalthat every programmer of the target group of creator2 from time to time has to code the business facades, more often they are a requirement which have to be codet by the sameperson who also does the ui coding.It would be good to merge the Creator2 which is slowly becoming a really excellent tool with ejb and orm offerings.which do not only work as consumers of those things.I think Oracle got this right in the first instance by producing an IDE which tries to cover all three stages of such applications, while Sun is wrong in their assumption.

    I think you're missing the point. It's all about seperation of concern, as I don't think you get with the other tools. Although, true that in most midsize to small shops, the developer does both, in large shops, it's is very convenient to have a tool designed specifically as a service consumer and GUI builder. Serious enterprise developers, would probably hate having the overhead of a GUI builder tool in their IDE, even if it was just a plugin.

    I also think Sun is targeting those "domain experts", basically not hardcore developers who can design a good GUI to interact with backend services.

    I also think it's a great preparation of SOA within organizations, where most business interfaces will be exposed as services, and "domain experts" can connect and interact with such services.

    Ilya
  29. Roman[ Go to top ]

    I think you're missing the point. It's all about seperation >>of concern, as I don't think you get with the other tools. >>Although, true that in most midsize to small shops, the >>developer does both, in large shops, it's is very convenient >>to have a tool designed specifically as a service consumer >>and GUI builder. Serious enterprise developers, would >>probably hate having the overhead of a GUI builder tool in >>their IDE, even if it was just a plugin.

    Again, I have to disagree. I think most would be willing to sacrifice the overhead of extra components. As a previous poster said, alot of times (and I'd wager more often than not) the same developer is coding at least some of the services and at least some of the GUI. So there needs to be some way for those developers to do their work without requiring them to work with seperate IDEs - because I don't think they will do that for long, they'll simply move to another product.

    Mike
  30. Roman[ Go to top ]

    Again, I have to disagree. I think most would be willing to sacrifice the overhead of extra components. As a previous poster said, alot of times (and I'd wager more often than not) the same developer is coding at least some of the services and at least some of the GUI. So there needs to be some way for those developers to do their work without requiring them to work with seperate IDEs - because I don't think they will do that for long, they'll simply move to another product.Mike

    Well, but look at it from the standpoint of a user interface. Services are independent of interfaces, so to say we'll allow you to build JSF based clients and tomorrow some other client technology, etc... I guess where I'm really liking it, is the strong seperation of concern here. When designing the business interfaces and services, we have to completely forget about the user interface piece, as that will allow loose coupling between at least these two tiers. I guess you can look at it from the standpoint of doing all the work and you want all the tools at your disposal in one IDE. But I think Sun's direction is let's not bundle client technology, with backend service technology, as that will completely clutter the product. Again, just my opinion.

    Roman, is this why Sun decided to seperate the two?

    Ilya
  31. Roman[ Go to top ]

    Roman, is this why Sun decided to seperate the two?Ilya

    Well, I'm not Roman, but I'll answer anyway. This is from Bob Brewin's blog entry I posted earlier: "The tools are designed, created and delivered for developers who need to solve specific problems for (in many cases) specific runtime platforms." Bob goes on to talk about the importance of aligning tools with specific runtimes/environments.

    But then he goes on to say, "The remaining question is will they stay that way ... probably not. The lines between the differing application platforms are becoming blurred (this is a normal tendency in our industry) as the need to leverage technology in what were separate areas becomes commonplace. For example, you may want to add mobile access to your enterprise application (so you want Mobility tools in your Java Studio Enterprise product) ... or you want rapid web application design in your Netbeans or Enterprise tools products. By the same token, just smashing them all together doesn't make sense either ... the result would be likely a schizophrenic tool with a convoluted or confusing workflow, UI or development paradigm. So will this change ... yes, but incrementally and with some forethought."

    It's a tough goal: trying to please all the people, all the time. But at least (speaking for myself) we're having fun trying. :-)
  32. Roman[ Go to top ]

    I think there should be some attempt to merge Creator, Netbeans, and even Java Studio Enterprise.
    We're moving in that direction. Check out this blog entry from Bob Brewin, chief architect of Sun's developer tools: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/brewin?entry=the_three_sea_shells
    I think the choice of having Creator2 only being a servicebusiness facade consumer is fatal, to my experience nobusiness programmer only consumes services it is rather normalthat every programmer of the target group of creator2 from time to time has to code the business facades, more often they are a requirement which have to be codet by the sameperson who also does the ui coding.It would be good to merge the Creator2 which is slowly becoming a really excellent tool with ejb and orm offerings.which do not only work as consumers of those things.I think Oracle got this right in the first instance by producing an IDE which tries to cover all three stages of such applications, while Sun is wrong in their assumption.
    I think you're missing the point. It's all about seperation of concern, as I don't think you get with the other tools. Although, true that in most midsize to small shops, the developer does both, in large shops, it's is very convenient to have a tool designed specifically as a service consumer and GUI builder. Serious enterprise developers, would probably hate having the overhead of a GUI builder tool in their IDE, even if it was just a plugin.I also think Sun is targeting those "domain experts", basically not hardcore developers who can design a good GUI to interact with backend services.I also think it's a great preparation of SOA within organizations, where most business interfaces will be exposed as services, and "domain experts" can connect and interact with such services.Ilya


    Actually sorry to jump the gun here again, I have not done too many projects in large shops but the projects I did never had this clear separation of concerns within the team to justify a separate ide for having a frontend consumer and a separate IDE for the service layer.

    The whole model is understandable from a business point of view for Sun, because it was able to raise extra cash that way. But given the fact that the tools are free now, it simply does not make sense anymore.
  33. Roman[ Go to top ]

    Actually sorry to jump the gun here again, I have not done too many projects in large shops but the projects I did never had this clear separation of concerns within the team to justify a separate ide for having a frontend consumer and a separate IDE for the service layer.The whole model is understandable from a business point of view for Sun, because it was able to raise extra cash that way. But given the fact that the tools are free now, it simply does not make sense anymore.

    The problem with the two IDE-s is that you have to separate your source code in two source trees. It is mach more then separation of developers responsibilities. It only makes sence when a frontend application and a service layer are separate products.

    Nebojsa
  34. IDE separation[ Go to top ]

    As you can read in the discussed post:

    http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/brewin?entry=the_three_sea_shells

    the reasons are mainly historical - it made sense when Sun was charging for the products built on top of NetBeans. Personally I think we could satisfy both groups:

    1. Provide the products as they are so that developers who need only part of the functionality can get use them with less complex UI.
    2. Provide some of the extra features NetBeans doesn't contain as a set of plug-ins for NetBeans.

    The possibilities are discussed now and it's too early to say anything about the decisions. This is not an official message from Sun - just my opinion how we should move forward.
  35. Discussion on Javalobby[ Go to top ]

    You can also read the discussion about RC1 on Javalobby, interestingly some of the raised questions were opened there as well:

    http://www.javalobby.org/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=91981894
  36. Its an awesome IDE.
  37. OS X[ Go to top ]

    Is this new NetBeans release still so INCREDIBLY UGLY on OS X?

     S.
  38. Screenshots[ Go to top ]

    Judge yourself:

    http://www.netbeans.org/images/screenshots/5.0/NetBeans50beta2Mac.png

    http://www.netbeans.org/images/screenshots/5.0/osx-jgoodies.png

    More screenshots available here:

    http://www.netbeans.org/products/ide/screenshots.html
  39. Its very nice and profrmance is also good.
  40. I must say, I've been playing around with the beta version and it's becoming more attractive than IDEA. I think the only thing that IDEA still has over Netbeans is more refactoring ability, but that gap is closing. Plus there are many plugins out there that will give better refactoring capabilities than IDEA.

    Actualy, Netbeans is the cleanest, most straightforward IDE on the market right now. Great job.

    Are you guys going to go after the masses of plugin creators, as that is the only thing that's attractive in Eclipse right now.

    Ilya Sterin
  41. Refactorings[ Go to top ]

    We're working on the refactorings and editor productivity improvements, stay tuned for some announcements around this year's Java One. And yes, we want to go after masses of plug-in creators - that's why we redesigned the support for building plug-ins and the NetBeans platform! We also launched last year a plug-in contest in Brazil:

    https://desafionetbeans.dev.java.net/

    I will be one of the judges and we're expecting over 100 plug-ins to be built on top of NetBeans. You may have noticed that Oracle recently announced they are backing NetBeans as a part of the Sun-Oracle relationship. We expect more large companies to stand behind NetBeans soon, because NetBeans user base has grown significantly in past year and half, so it's becoming very interesting to write plug-ins for NetBeans.
  42. re: IDEAS[ Go to top ]

    First off, netBeans 5 is real neat!

    But to pick on it, "refactoring" is not the only thing it's short of IDEAS. The Java "editor" can learn borrow something as well.

    i.e.

    . In IDEAS all the sub/implementing classes for a super class/interface can be navigated to by clicking on the drop down list next to the class delaration on the left (if there is only one implementation/subclass, there is no list, the IDE takes you right there on click). With NetBeans, seems you have to do this kind of thing by "find usage".

    . "Suggestions" in editor is not as strong and smooth. Like if you type some identifier in a method body that doesn't exist, IDEAS asks you "Do you want to create field of that name, or some other things...?" Then you choose one, the code is automatically generated. That's the sort of thing IDEAS says "Code as fast as you think.". Admitted, NetBeans 5 has similar functions as well, but not as smooth as in IDEAS.

    That said, NetBeans "editor" has improved a lot. And over all it's a very enjoyable IDE. As a consultant, I've used JBuilder, Eclipse, and currently IDEAS at work. And NetBeans is my IDE of choice as long as it supports the clients version control system. (For now, it's missing "Perforce", which is used by many.)
  43. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    * Matisse GUI Builder

    I have played a bit with this new GUI builder.
    It looks great! (at least, for the simple things I tried to do).
    So, I must say congrats to the Netbeans team!

    Now, we've got Netbeans and Eclipse, which are both very good.
    But , sometime, I just think that if all of the brains/resources/energies behind Netbeans and Eclipse could be put together, if both projects could be merged in something like NetEclipe/EclipseBeans :-) , we'd probably have the best IDE on Earth.(Note that Eclipse already has plugins for almost all languages -- PHP, C#, Ruby, Python, ... )

    I guess, some of you would say they want more choices. But IMHO, NetBeans and Eclipse nowadays have *almost* the same set of features (except SWT vs SWING).
    So, instead of duplicating/copying features, merging those two projects would be very healthy for the Open Source Software community as a whole .

    Arcadius.
  44. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    So, instead of duplicating/copying features, merging those two projects would be very healthy for the Open Source Software community as a whole .Arcadius.

    On the contrary, I think it would be completely the wrong thing to do, and very unhealthy indeed.

    If there was a single dominant IDE, it could have dominance over the development of Java. Let me give an example. When Java 1.5 came out I was eager to experiment with it. Eclipse did not provide stable support Java 1.5 for a long time. I know of some developers who were reluctant to migrate to Java 1.5 because Eclipse did not support it. Fortunately for me, I am a NetBeans user and could get support for the latest Java almost as soon as it came out of beta. However, without the option to use NetBeans, my use of Java 1.5 may well have been held back as well.

    There needs to be healthy competition between IDEs to ensure that they compete to provide the best development tools and features.

    What I would support is IDEs having a common standard for plug-ins and extensions.
  45. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    So, instead of duplicating/copying features, merging those two projects would be very healthy for the Open Source Software community as a whole .Arcadius.
    On the contrary, I think it would be completely the wrong thing to do, and very unhealthy indeed.If there was a single dominant IDE, it could have dominance over the development of Java. Let me give an example. When Java 1.5 came out I was eager to experiment with it. Eclipse did not provide stable support Java 1.5 for a long time. I know of some developers who were reluctant to migrate to Java 1.5 because Eclipse did not support it. Fortunately for me, I am a NetBeans user and could get support for the latest Java almost as soon as it came out of beta. However, without the option to use NetBeans, my use of Java 1.5 may well have been held back as well.

    I could argue that if there was something like a NetEclipe/EclipseBeans IDE, it would have Java5 support implemented by the Netbeans team, and the Eclipse team would focus on other features such as plugin dev, refactoring, more lang support, etc.
     So you'd have had a better IDE with support for Java5 before the official release of the JDK1.5
    There needs to be healthy competition between IDEs to ensure that they compete to provide the best development tools and features. What I would support is IDEs having a common standard for plug-ins and extensions.

    However I do agree that in most cases, competition helps to develop better products, I could still argue that NetEclipe/EclipseBeans would have competition: VS.Net :-)

    Arcadius.
  46. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I could argue that if there was something like a NetEclipe/EclipseBeans IDE, it would have Java5 support implemented by the Netbeans team, and the Eclipse team would focus on other features such as plugin dev, refactoring, more lang support, etc.&nbsp;So you'd have had a better IDE with support for Java5 before the official release of the JDK1.5

    I don't think so. After all, I think these things are often a matter of priorities rather than resources. Merged teams would have changed priorities and focus.

    I have never understood the often-expressed wish that there should be one primary Java IDE. Java's strength is its diversity.
  47. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    Both of these are good IDEs, and, both the NetBeans and Eclipse developers have done an amazing job (including this latest release from NetBeans).

    That said, I do think they could move forward faster and create a greater IDE by merging. The duplication of effort when there is much common functionality is a waste.

    I almost choked when I read the sentence "Java's strength is its diversity." At first glance anyway (and it is certainly possible I am misinterpreting), it sounds kind of counter to the whole write once/run anywhere philosophy. I thought companies were sued over "diversifying" Java.

    That said, the diversity of the Java Community (as opposed to homogeneity of Java the language and the jvm) has been its greatest strength, with such excellent support right from a desktop PC to big server machines, and so many amazingly useful tools which have sprouted and grown in the fertile java ground.

    In some areas diversity and competition have been a strength, an advantage, but I think the IDE area is one which would benefit from pruning and consolidation.

    Don Morgan
    http://www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    Audiobooks for Software Developers
  48. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I almost choked when I read the sentence "Java's strength is its diversity." At first glance anyway (and it is certainly possible I am misinterpreting), it sounds kind of counter to the whole write once/run anywhere philosophy.

    I meant the diversity of approaches and tools. Without WORA, that would have been impossible.
  49. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    That said, I do think they could move forward faster and create a greater IDE by merging. The duplication of effort when there is much common functionality is a waste.

    I totally agree with you Don.

    Why am I advocating NetBeans/Eclipse merger?
    Let me make a long story short.

    I was a Netbeans enthusiastic until I joined a team of smart J2EE developers which was using eclipse only.
    So, I started using eclipse too.

    I must say that for coding J2EE, eclipse is really a strong tool(I'm sorry to be saying it here). And since then (2 years ago), I been using Eclipse at work.
    One day, I needed to put together a simple PHP site for myself. I have easilly found a plugin which worked great with Eclipse. I googled for PHP plugin/module for netbeans,hopping to go back to my old love for Netbeans, but there was no such a thing. Even today, there is no support for PHP on netbeans it seems.

    So, Eclipse have some strong points that netbeans doesn't have yet.
    From time to time, I download new builts of Netbeans and play with it at home. Recently , I was VERY impressed by the new GUI builder which is really well done.

    So, I have been thinking that we'd get the best of both worlds if those two projects could merge.

    But IMHO the main problem here remains the SWT vs Swing issue.
    There have been a lot of efforts put on creating SWT, and recently, the Eclipse project has been pushing hard for the VisualEditor/GuiBuilder. And I can't stop thinking about the following:

    1)If all the effort/research/money/energy/brains put behing SWT were added to the JavaDesktop/Swing effort, we'd certainly have a better Swing today! Or at least, a more responsive Swing, and a better LookAndFeel for native platforms such as windows,GTK, Motif, etc.
    And do we really need both SWT and Swing? I don't think so.

    2)If all of the effort behind the creation of the eclipse VE was spent on Netbeans, we'd probably have a better Matisse GUI builder today!


    Please, never forget that developers live on bread :-), and the companies behind Netbeans and Eclipse don't have unlimited resources, therefore, it make sens not to waste effort.

    After the merger(if any), those who are advocating diversity would still be happy with IDEA, JDeveloper, JBuilder, etc.

    Seriously, Sun and IBM/TheEclipseFoundation should sit down at one table, and sincerely talk about SWT/Swing and come up with a solution.
    The Java community does not deserve this SWT/Swing war!

    Thanks for reading all this.

    Arcadius.
  50. It's a matter of philosophy[ Go to top ]

    1)If all the effort/research/money/energy/brains put behing SWT were added to the JavaDesktop/Swing effort, we'd certainly have a better Swing today! Or at least, a more responsive Swing, and a better LookAndFeel for native platforms such as windows,GTK, Motif, etc. And do we really need both SWT and Swing? I don't think so.

    The merge is impossible due to the fact that SWT and Swing has a completely different philosophy - Swing prefers drawing the widgets within Java code (lightweight component) while SWT prefers to use as many native widgets as possible. That's why Swing is much slower, no matter how much it tries. Unless Swing team decided to give up trying to emulating native widgets in Java (which is why Swing's File dialog looks funny in swing), I cannot see them merging.

    You can plug Swing components into SWT right now (SWT_AWT class) so it is possible right now to have a Eclipse plugin to use Swing components (though it will look ugly...)

    Having said that - I remember SwingWT project (which uses maps Swing Widget into SWT) - I wonder how it is getting along,,,
  51. It's a matter of philosophy[ Go to top ]

    while SWT prefers to use as many native widgets as possible. That's why Swing is much slower, no matter how much it tries.

    Swing hasn't been slow for some time. There is no reason why a non-native GUI should be slow. After all, what are 'native widgets' but graphics drawn by code? Providing Java is fast enough (and it now is), and can make use of fast graphics primitives (it can), then if Swing grabs an area of screen and draws components this can be just as fast as any so-called 'native' widget set. Anyway, on many display technologies such as X there is no defined native set, so the term 'native widget' is meaningless.

    Swing really is now pretty fast. I can open up a Swing application like JEdit beside a KDE application like Kate and I find little difference in either the start-up time of the application (JEdit is a little faster) or in the response of the GUI, whereas I have heard of complaints about the performance of SWT (supposedly 'native') under Linux.

    Swing uses things like DirectX acceleration by default since Java 1.5, giving yet another boost in performance.

    The reasons why Swing used to be slow was a bad object model - the design was (I believe) based on a Smalltalk GUI, using an object model which worked efficiently under Smalltalk but not under Java.
  52. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    The duplication of effort when there is much common functionality is a waste.
    Maybe, but the effort of merging two big software projects that not only rely on different GUI toolkits but were written from scratch to start with would by far dwarf that effort.

    If such a task were undertaken, I can't imagine how it wouldn't be at least one if not two years before the merged IDE reaches the current functionalities we have today in Eclipse/NetBeans.
    it sounds kind of counter to the whole write once/run anywhere philosophy.
    How does diversity go against write once / run anywhere? You lost me, there.
    I think the IDE area is one which would benefit from pruning and consolidation.
    I disagree. I think the reason why we have three outstanding IDE's to choose from today comes from the fact we have three outstanding IDE's competing with each other ruthlessly.

    Compare with Visual Studio, which has pretty much no competition and which has been the best IDE around for many years. I claim that Java IDE's have now surpassed it by a wide margin.

    --
    Cedric




    Don Morganhttp://www.DeveloperAdvantage.comAudiobooks for Software Developers
  53. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I claim that Java IDE's have now surpassed it by a wide margin.
    Definitely. Honestly, looking back at VB6 and things like VAJ, Java IDE's where much better if VB project was complicated at all.
  54. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I disagree. I think the reason why we have three outstanding IDE's to choose from today comes from the fact we have three outstanding IDE's competing with each other ruthlessly.

    I know it sounds kind of like some speach from the sixties, but I think the reason we have such great IDEs is the passion, talent and generosity of the developers who created them and shared their work with the rest of us. I could be wrong, but I doubt the majority of Eclipse developers are motivated by a desire to squash NetBeans or vice versa.

    I think you are right though that it would take a large effort to merge them (merging may also not mean a disappearance of one or the other, maybe more just one leveraging the other). As I posted in a different message, Borland is moving to Eclipse. It will be interesting to see how well it works out for them.

    Don Morgan
    http://www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    Audiobooks for Software Developers
  55. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I could be wrong, but I doubt the majority of Eclipse developers are motivated by a desire to squash NetBeans or vice versa.
    It is not about destruction, but rather about survival. If one doesn't evolve as fast as the others, one is doomed to fail. Eclipse would lose userbase to Netbeans if Eclipse hadn't included WST, JSE1.5 and other new functionality in its IDE. And I bet Netbeans lost userbase to Eclipse due to lack of refactoring and other Eclipse niceties. So now Netbeans has some refactoring like Eclipse, and Eclipse has some Web tools like Netbeans, and so on. None is out there to destroy the other, but just to retain or increase their own userbase. Destroying competition would be just a side effect... ;)
  56. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    Furthermore, I think the main reason the developpers work is because they're paid to do so ;) lol

    Being NetBeans/Sun or Eclipse/IBM, the developpers have boss and orders to follow I think.
  57. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    It depends... for some people it's just a job, but for me it's also a hobby - you can see me often working on NetBeans during weekends, I wouldn't do that if I had a "normal" job. Also don't forget about many people all over the world who contribute to both NetBeans and Eclipse without any compensation - some do it just because they enjoy it. Really, there still exist such people in this money-driven world and I'm glad for that :)

    As for merging NetBeans and Eclipse, I think there are many technical obstacles but there is also a trust issue, which can show as even more important.
  58. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    Compare with Visual Studio, which has pretty much no competition and which has been the best IDE around for many years.

    Visual Studio did and still does have competition. Through the 1990's Borland's IDEs blew away Microsoft's. Microsoft responded by stealing Borland's best ideas (no harm in that) and then by hiring away many of its IDE developers. By the time Visual Studio could compare favorably to Borland, there was Java and Microsoft's desire to migrate its development community to .NET without losing them to Java. Today Visual Studio is a part of the general .NET/Java competition.

    Its all a good thing. The folks who think that multiple IDEs are somehow a waste of resources, duplicative effort etc. have obviously missed the lessons of capitalism. Or perhaps they think the Soviet Union was a big economic success story.

    Developers who work on NetBeans would not all move to Eclipse if NetBeans was killed or merged. These two projects represent different ideas and approaches and they both contribute positively to the Java community and in bringing in more talent from other programming platforms. Viva le differance!
  59. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    NEWSFLASH
    ---------
    (Washington, DC) In a stunning turn of events, President Bush has outlawed Mergers and Acquisitions. In a statement released today, President Bush explained "Mergers and Acquisitions reduce competition, since, after the merger, those two organizations who merged just don't compete with each other anymore. Well, this is so un-capitalistic I have decided that henceforth, Mergers and Acquisitions will no longer be allowed."

    "Well, I guess I won't be getting a new Ferrari next January" groaned a now unemployed M&A specialist.
  60. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I have never understood the often-expressed wish that there should be one primary Java IDE. Java's strength is its diversity.

    It's not a matter of one primary Java IDE, but rather one good open source Java IDE
    Even after Eclipse/Netbeans merger, there would still be IDEA,JDeveloper,JBuilder, etc.
    So, choices and diversity would still be available for those who need them.
  61. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I have never understood the often-expressed wish that there should be one primary Java IDE. Java's strength is its diversity.
    It's not a matter of one primary Java IDE, but rather one good open source Java IDEEven after Eclipse/Netbeans merger, there would still be IDEA,JDeveloper,JBuilder, etc.So, choices and diversity would still be available for those who need them.

    I think I disagree with you fundamentally. I don't see why we need just one good open source IDE. We already have two at least good open source IDEs!

    This may sound harsh, but I think your point of view that if Eclipse and NetBeans 'just merged' (whatever that means) then you would get the best of both worlds is naive. Individual organisations have different emphases. Eclipse concentrated on being a good plug-in framework with refactoring tools, and NetBeans concentrated on being a total solution for Java development, with integrated GUI designer and J2EE. A merged organisation would have yet other priorities.

    It is mistaken to think of developers at the companies at as a limited resource, both working towards the same goal. They are working towards different goals, and both are doing well.

    I want a range of options. I want NetBeans to be stimulated by what Eclipse does and vice versa. Having one monolithic open source IDE for Java would be bad for Java and bad for developers.

    Perhaps a better approach than pushing for some sort of never-to-happen merger is to indicate clearly to each development team what you think their product is missing.
  62. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I want NetBeans to be stimulated by what Eclipse does and vice versa. Having one monolithic open source IDE for Java would be bad for Java and bad for developers.Perhaps a better approach than pushing for some sort of never-to-happen merger is to indicate clearly to each development team what you think their product is missing.

    Steve, I must say that your statements have some points. And I do respect them.

    However, as a developer, you'd probably make up your mind when you'll go for a job inteview and you get asked some SWT specific questions.

    I do agree that diversity is cool, but not always.

    Look at the .NET guys. They have no worry.
    They just need to learn WinForm, ASP.NET, some ADO.NET and they are ready to land at any job.

    For the Java guys, it's another story.
  63. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I do agree that diversity is cool, but not always.Look at the .NET guys. They have no worry.They just need to learn WinForm, ASP.NET, some ADO.NET and they are ready to land at any job.For the Java guys, it's another story.

    Well, that is simply a fact of life if you are dealing with a rich and varied group of tools and APIs. It is something we just have to deal with.
    However, as a developer, you'd probably make up your mind when you'll go for a job inteview and you get asked some SWT specific questions.

    Actually, I am more likely to be doing the interview, but that is another matter.

    .NET's possibly restricted choices may turn out to be a problem. I have dealt with Microsoft technologies since the 70s, and they often make rapid changes in direction, leaving the developers struggling to keep up. I remember the confusing mess that was Win32S development as Microsoft tried to decide how to move out of 16-bit. I have heard the complaints of VB developers as Microsoft announced VB.NET with its considerable incompatibilities. I have learned to stay away from single-vendor approaches.

    This range of technologies aren't there simply to make things more difficult for job interviews - they are there to ensure that Java adapts and thrives, and is not subject entirely to the whims of a single company.
  64. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    Steve, I must say that your statements have some points. And I do respect them. However, as a developer, you'd probably make up your mind when you'll go for a job interview and you get asked some SWT specific questions.

    Hmmm, actually I can't remember an interview that asked any GUI specific question? What's the ration of web based app development using Java, to that of Swing and/or SWT? Probably like 200 to 1 if not more.
    I do agree that diversity is cool, but not always. Look at the .NET guys. They have no worry. They just need to learn WinForm, ASP.NET, some ADO.NET and they are ready to land at any job. For the Java guys, it's another story.

    Well, yes and no, although Java world offers a variety of technology, the enterprise trends (for job seekers) tend to go with one or two of those, so it's not that hard to learn the core technologies to land majority of jobs out there. Say there are many MVC frameworks out there, but most jobs are looking for Struts and/or JSF developers, though many frameworks exist that might be in some ways better than the above.

    Java is great in that it offers a variety. I used to spend sleepless nights and days at that, trying to figure out the IDE for me. Looking at reviews, forums IDE vs. IDE, etc... I came to a conclusion that the great thing is that I can use them all interchangeably, at once, or as I please. They all have their strong points and week points.

    Ilya
  65. Best of both worlds[ Go to top ]

    This may sound harsh, but I think your point of view that if Eclipse and NetBeans 'just merged' (whatever that means) then you would get the best of both worlds is naive.
    Correct. Especially if we take into account that the “best of both worlds” would be at the moment of merge. After that there would be one “world” again.
  66. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I want NetBeans to be stimulated by what Eclipse does and vice versa.

    If really good features are added to one IDE, I think, in general, they should also eventually be reimplemented in the other IDE. I suppose one could say C# was stimulated by Java, but I think this kind of stimulation is different than true innovation.

    Perhaps a better approach than pushing for some sort of never-to-happen merger is to indicate clearly to each development team what you think their product is missing.

    Another approach would be to try think of what really useful java IDE features you would only want to see in one java IDE, and not in the other.

    I do agree it would be very difficult to merge them, perhaps too difficult to be worth the effort. I did notice that on the wikipedia article for Eclipse, it states "Many notable software tool vendors have embraced Eclipse as a future framework for their IDEs, among them Borland and IBM Rational". How (and why) are they doing this, particularly Borland? Do you think they will succeed? Could the same approach work for NetBeans?

    Don Morgan
    http://www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    Audiobooks for Software Developers
  67. NetEclipe/EclipseBeans[ Go to top ]

    I did notice that on the wikipedia article for Eclipse, it states "Many notable software tool vendors have embraced Eclipse as a future framework for their IDEs, among them Borland and IBM Rational". How (and why) are they doing this, particularly Borland? Do you think they will succeed?

    I think they are doing it because Eclipse provides a good basis for doing this, although I suspect that long term the use of SWT will look like a barrier to this, as it does not seem to have really taken off (although if anyone has evidence contrary to this - and the single case of Azeurus is not sufficient - I would be interested), and using a GUI that is not used for much but an IDE looks rather pointless.
    Could the same approach work for NetBeans?

    I don't know, and I am not sure whether or not this matters. I use NetBeans because I am not interested in using a platform for plug-ins - I want to use a fully-functional out of the box IDE, and NetBeans fulfils this role superbly.
  68. Competition is healthy[ Go to top ]

    I agree that competition is healthy - as Jonathan Schwartz said: "What is the reason that NetBeans became so good? Eclipse." Similarly, if there was no Hibernate, Spring, etc. there would be less push to fix the comblexity of EJB2.

    My personal opinion: it would be nice if there was a standard way how to build plug-ins for all Java IDEs, unfortunately I think this is a very complex problem and the Swing/SWT issues don't help it. But we'll see - who knows what can happen in times when Sun partners with Microsoft :)
  69. Competition is healthy[ Go to top ]

    My personal opinion: it would be nice if there was a standard way how to build plug-ins for all Java IDEs, unfortunately I think this is a very complex problem and the Swing/SWT issues don't help it. But we'll see - who knows what can happen in times when Sun partners with Microsoft :)

    What about JSR 198? Is it the goal to have a common framework for all IDE?
    http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=198
  70. Competition is healthy[ Go to top ]

    The goal of this JSR is to have common APIs for plug-ins. I don't know all the details but as far as I understand it, the IDEs will have to implement support for this JSR. Then people will be able to write plug-ins independent on IDEs. I am not sure if/how this solves the Swing/SWT issues - you know even though there's the AWT/SWT bridge, the plug-ins will look pretty strange if Swing and SWT is mixed (either way). But as I said, I don't know the details to judge it properly.
  71. where is the AspectJ plug-in ?[ Go to top ]

    Anybody know if there will be an updtaed Aspectj plug-in for NB ? I love NB 4x , however,in my current project, I need an IDE with Aspectj support. I would hate to move to Eclipse just for this plug-in.
  72. AspectJ plug-in[ Go to top ]

    Unfortunately I'm not aware of an AspectJ plug-in for NetBeans but make sure to say loud that you want it and some friendly plug-in vendor will write it :)
  73. AspectJ plug-in[ Go to top ]

    There was very good support for AspectJ in NetBeans in 3.3/3.4, written by the guys who created AspectJ. Development on that stopped when Eclipse ate AspectJ. I believe the sources are still available, but it would take some sort of organized community effort to revive it, alas. I suspect with the 4.0-and-up project system, any such implementation would be much simpler than what had to be done back then, though.
  74. Great Job, need subversion support[ Go to top ]

    I love running netbeans on OS X. The only thing keeping me from actually using it on projects is the lack of subversion support.
  75. Subversion[ Go to top ]

    Subversion support is available, but it's done the old generic way:

    http://www.netbeans.org/kb/faqs/version-control-system.html#HowToUseSubversionIn50

    We are working now on better SVN support which will be integrated similarly as the new CVS, see:

    http://www.javalobby.org/eps/netbeans5/data/swf/fm_cvs_demo.swf

    Work on this has already started and I hope we'll be able to provide it as an update option once it's ready.
  76. more VCS support[ Go to top ]

    The version control system is completely redone. Really need to catch up with more support on top of CVS:

    . Perforce
    . Subversion
    . ClearCase
    ......
  77. VCS[ Go to top ]

    Yes - and we're working on it. In meanwhile you can use the old support from update center for other versioning systems than CVS. These I believe are Microsoft VSS, Merant PVCS, ClearCase, StarTeam, Subversion and TeamWare.
  78. wasted effort ?[ Go to top ]

    I think developers would be better served if the resources allocated for these different IDEs were instead pooled and used to make a truly great IDE. Many of the features are similar across different IDEs, but get implemented over and over again.

    Don Morgan
    http://www.developeradvantage.com
    Audiobooks for Software Developers
  79. wasted effort ?[ Go to top ]

    Competition is good.
  80. wasted effort ?[ Go to top ]

    Cooperation is good too.

    Don Morgan
    http://www.developeradvantage.com
    Audiobooks for Software Developers
  81. wasted effort ?[ Go to top ]

    I think we need two new concepts:
    ISR (IDE specification request)
    ICP (IDE community process).
  82. wasted effort ?[ Go to top ]

    I think that competition brings more features to an IDE than the amount of resources.

    But I agree with you in some aspects, I don't hear anything about JSR 198: A Standard Extension API for Integrated Development Environments (http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=198) but I really hope that will be adopted by all the IDEs (or that all of them create a plug-in for accept JSR 198 plug-ins ;-)

    Cheers
      JD
    I think developers would be better served if the resources allocated for these different IDEs were instead pooled and used to make a truly great IDE. Many of the features are similar across different IDEs, but get implemented over and over again. Don Morganhttp://www.developeradvantage.comAudiobooks for Software Developers
  83. NetBeans and Eclipse[ Go to top ]

    NetBeans and Eclipse as seperate entities promote creativity in Java world not only as development platforms of choice but also as open source Java IDE's to the Java community.
  84. NetBeans and Eclipse[ Go to top ]

    NetBeans and Eclipse as seperate entities promote creativity in Java world not only as development platforms of choice but also as open source Java IDE's to the Java community.
    The folk working on Eclipse and Netbeans are not hobyists. Most of them are full time profesionnal developers.

    Do you think that the companies behind Netbeans and Eclipse have unlimited resources/fonds for paying the developers?

    I still wonder how Sun manage to make revenue.
    -We get Java for free
    -Netbeans for free
    -Sun app server and all of the commercial tools are also free now

    Unity would probably help.
  85. Scary[ Go to top ]

    Do you think that the companies behind Netbeans and Eclipse have unlimited resources/fonds for paying the developers?I still wonder how Sun manage to make revenue.-We get Java for free-Netbeans for free-Sun app server and all of the commercial tools are also free now.

    When I think about it I get scared. What happens to Java when Sun goes bankrupt?
  86. Scary?[ Go to top ]

    No need to worry, Sun won't go bankrupt :)
  87. I think we will have another powerfull IDE rather than EClipse!
    --
    Ahmed Hashim
    Software Engineer
    Egypt
    Egypt JUG http://www.egjug.org
    http://www.egjug.org/EClipse_tips_and_trics
    http://www.egjug.org/node/181
  88. NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    Hi

    Is there someone able to compare NetBeans or Eclipse with Visual Studio ? I didn't use Visual Studio so far so for me it's hard to tell but many of my .Net friends tell me Visual Studio is really good.

    One of these .Net friends who had to switch to Eclipse 3.0 & Java still says Visual Studio is way better. What do you think of it ? Any feedback ?

    Thanks in advance.

    ZedroS
  89. HiIs there someone able to compare NetBeans or Eclipse with Visual Studio ? I didn't use Visual Studio so far so for me it's hard to tell but many of my .Net friends tell me Visual Studio is really good. One of these .Net friends who had to switch to Eclipse 3.0 &amp; Java still says Visual Studio is way better. What do you think of it ? Any feedback ?Thanks in advance.ZedroS

    I don't think a comparison would be fair or relevant. Eclipse and Netbeans are free IDEs for Java programmers. Java programmers target J2EE, Java clients, Spring, other Java platforms. VS.Net programmers target the .NET platform. If you intend to do .NET your IDE choices are primarily from Borland and Microsoft. If you intend to do Java, you have far more than Netbeans and Eclipse, you have Borland's JBuilder, Oracles JDeveloper (based on JBuilder), IBM's Websphere Studio (based on Eclipse), IntelliJ, and many more. The IDEs you pay for (Websphere, JBuilder, Visual Studio, etc.) tend to include more direct and seamless support for certain deployments like Websphere application server and more bells and whistles pre-configured and installed. The free IDEs like Eclipse and Netbeans generally require that you obtain and configure the plug-ins you need yourself.

    First decide on the platform/environment you are targeting and then choose among the best IDEs available for that. Don't pick .NET or Java because of an IDE.
  90. The thing that Visual Studio has that Eclipse and NetBeans lack is visual and declarative development. This means that you can for example decalre your data source and then drag and drop it to create the user interfaces.

    One Free tool that has it in Java world is Oracle JDeveloper. (which, by the way William, is not based on JBuilder since the 2001 version).
    Like someone said in one of the previous post JDeveloper combines the coding features you can find in Java IDEs and can't find in MS tools, with the visual and declarative development approach - all in a singel IDE.
  91. RE: NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    The thing that Visual Studio has that Eclipse and NetBeans lack is visual and declarative development. This means that you can for example decalre your data source and then drag and drop it to create the user interfaces
    Which is something I don't do and am glad most Java IDEs don't have. But that is me.
  92. RE: NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    The thing that Visual Studio has that Eclipse and NetBeans lack is visual and declarative development. This means that you can for example decalre your data source and then drag and drop it to create the user interfaces

    hmmm ... spend 3 minutes on java.sun.com and explore the "java creator", which is a NB's extension for JSF.

    you can drag and drop your data sources whole day

    BTW Creator is now free as ALL SUN enterpise SW and tools ...

    AFAIK Oracle10g developer should know it also

    these M$ guys ...
  93. RE: NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    Great. Good news. Bad news.
  94. RE: NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    The thing that Visual Studio has that Eclipse and NetBeans lack is visual and declarative development. This means that you can for example decalre your data source and then drag and drop it to create the user interfaces
    Which is something I don't do and am glad most Java IDEs don't have. But that is me.

    And me.

    This sort of thing is common in Microsoft development tools and languages - lots of features that allow for fast development, but which don't encourage good practice and maintainability. I have had a deep distrust of their development tools since they first released Visual Basic. After having seen the richness of Smalltalk development IDEs in the 80s (and having praised them), Bill Gates released a version of Basic... that lacked inheritance. I'm afraid I have been somewhat biased against their development tools ever since, and the occasional necessity to use Visual Studio has not changed this.
  95. RE: NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    And me.This sort of thing is common ...

    As long as one stays on the straight and narrow with VS.Net, all seems wonderful. But on each side is a great abyss. And believe me, I have fallen off many a time.
  96. The thing that Visual Studio has that Eclipse and NetBeans lack is visual and declarative development. This means that you can for example decalre your data source and then drag and drop it to create the user interfaces.One Free tool that has it in Java world is Oracle JDeveloper. (which, by the way William, is not based on JBuilder since the 2001 version).Like someone said in one of the previous post JDeveloper combines the coding features you can find in Java IDEs and can't find in MS tools, with the visual and declarative development approach - all in a singel IDE.

    Actually Studio Creator does just that, but it also enforces good design principles by binding the data sources not directly onto the controls but adding dao/bo glue code to it.
    JDeveloper is another one, but I did not like the way it glues the data to the ADF stuff very much, it hides too much away from you.

    After all this is a maintainability issue, visual tools are good for quick hacking but once you reach a maintainability phase, different things matter, like good project structuring, that you can reache the bones of the program to a certain extent, that you can reach the glue code etc...
    And that is one point where Microsoft tools usually fall flat on the face. The typical example is the average access app, which is hacked together and after 1-2 years it becomes the maintainence nightmare of the departement.
  97. NetBeans-Eclipse // Visual Studio[ Go to top ]

    It really depends on what you do and how you develop. I use both Eclipse and VS.Net pretty much on a daily basis. Some things I like better in each. But all-in-all, Eclipse (plus plugins) is much better (for me) than VS.Net. It really is those little things. And they add up. I probably should start keeping a list.