Sorry, this has accumulted inside of me for months, listening to the
eclipse evangelism..., but mostly to xcode/wobuilder tools being
disparaged and ridiculed, along with those who prefer them ...
On 5-Jul-07, at 16:36 , Chuck Hill wrote:
While it is not flashy, it is far more productive for me than
WOBuilder ever was and I am FAR happier using it than I was using
WOBuilder.
I'm thrilled for you.
Too many people seem to be more concerned with which font is used
or IDE layout, or cute drag and drop tricks than they are with
actual, real life productivity.
Every time I hear this argument, it brings me back to the 80's when
some people argued that Emacs was the "end all" tool, that they were
not slowed down by taking their hands off the keyboard to get to the
mouse and that this graphical user stuff was just for wimps.
I use a wide variety of tools, languages and methods to do my work. I
have to write assembler, C, Obj-C, Java, shell scripts ... Doing all
of my work with only a single tool would be gauche and unproductive.
Productivity for some means thinking textually and with a keyboard,
for others it means thinking graphically and with a mouse.
Three things should motivate a WOBuilder replacement:
1) Its absence denatures WebObjects, which was initially marketed as
a rapid and relatively easy way to build webapps. Sure, eventually,
you had to write more code and get down into the technology, but you
could get simple apps with good results rather easily. It made the
entry easier and certainly attracted new developers to join. While I
agree wolips's component editor is good, the overall suite will not
attract any significant numbers of new developers. Eclipse OpenSource
connection's will not expose WebObjects to a new receptive crowd (as
they will also stick with other opensourced solutions like Rails/
Hibernate/Cayenne/Tapestry or whatever). Meanwhile, the abandon of
XCode/WoBuilder will mean the abandon of Apple's crowd who like
simple/graphical/elegant tools. Over time, I'm convinced it spells
the drift of WO to insignificance.
2) For full time developer, proficiency with the tool can be
developed with time and productivity then ensues. In those scenarios,
Eclipse might yield some positive "return on investment" to learn/
master it. But what about those who do not developpe WO apps full
time ? I have to learn those tools just a few hours at a time. While
I may intensely work on a project for a while, I may have to switch
to writing assembler to boot a ARM CPU and implement a real-time app
and then to spend weeks designing/building/testing optical/mechanical/
electronics systems. Next, I may have to go back and revisit a tools
I've developed with WO to add some feature we need ! Drop back into
eclipse, I Think not. Startup WOBuidler, makes more sense. I'll be up
an running much faster. I doubt I'm the only one who doing this part
time, and for us, WOBuilder is the only thing that makes sense.
3) I also develop apps in Cocoa, and the combination of XCode/
Interface Builder/Cocoa/Bindings just rocks! It allows to build great
tools quickly (part-time) faster than anything else ( even from my
Windows collegues) I do not understand why a new generation of
WOBuilder could not do the same for WebObjects. I always expected
that the technologies were converging to allow this, Webkit, Core
Data, Cocoa ... It would help promote WebOjects and make it
accessible to more developers, including novice, and part-time.
Apple should care very much about reason 1
Developers like myself should care about 2.
Everybody should care about 3
<rant of my own>
To those who think WO will not go away because it's too significant a
framework and because Apple uses it, think MacApp... A very
sophisticated Application framework that died from neglect and
eventually disappeared despite Apple using it for many of its own
apps. A GUI editor (forgot the name) was also part of the toolchain
and it too was eventually neglected by Apple. Faced with the
obsolescence of the tool, a third party developed from scratch a
better replacement and sold it (named AdLib). I do not know if it was
profitable, but every body I knew switched to it for the few bug
fixes and the few new features it offered. Apple eventually bought
the application and distributed it...
Lastly, everybody is free to do what they want and I certainly agree
the we do not have any right to expect others to do work freely for
any of us. However I do not understand why there has to be a business
case for developing a WOBuilder replacement ? that it must be
absolutely profitable ? I'm curious to see the numbers that
supported the development of WOLips, Project Wonder ??? Should I
assume that these were profitable endeavors ! To me, they certainly
seem equally large/serious development efforts, probably even more
than a WOBuilder replacement.
If WOLIps was going commercial, how much would you pay ?
It really depends on how those who would developed it want to be
rewarded for their effort/contribution. It does not have to be free,
neither does it have to make commercial sense.
In any scenarios, Apple should contribute.
</rant of my own>
Now, it's time to put my money where my mouth is. I would certainly
agree to pay for a WOBuilder replacement. I would pay a variable
amount of money depending on the quality. $ 500 seems reasonable.
There, you have it. Now I feel better. Time to put my flame suite on...
OK, enough of that rant...
Louis Demers eng.
Obzerv Technologies Inc.
www.obzerv.com
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
