Re: best Dam*ed development environment revisited (was Re: [DotGNU]Working Groups plan v2)

[James Michael DuPont]

--- Charles Shuller <address@hidden> wrote:
> I completely agree, but I'm lost on a key issue.  Isn't the 
> interoperability thing what Sun tried to do with Java, and what POSIX
> tried to do with C?  How do we ensure success where they failed?  I 
> think it is completely possible, but I don't know how to go about it,

No, It is the interop between gcc, bison and emacs to create a
syntax highlighting emacs with symantic analysis.
that is the advantage of closed source tools have that we dont have,
because of the man-in-the midddle attack.

> 
> and I haven't seen anything that addresses that particular issue yet.

We are different because the GPL give access to the source code,
we can change the programs to work together, via a white-box GPL
interface it is easier the via a black-box. The coalliation government
is stronger than the paranoid gonverment.

>  I 
> also don't think Java had anything particularly wrong with it 
> technically, other than it was massivly slow.  To me it seems lack of
> 
> industry/developer support, and they got most of Academia onboard. 
> Which also seems to be a point (specifically that Java lacked a cool 
> DevPlatform) of Fitzix, if I'm not mis-reading this quote.
> 
> I could easily be completely off here, but I LIKE using Emacs and
> Make 
> :)  Most IDE's completely irritate me, do we have enough developers 
> working with us, who like using IDE's, to design, develop, and test
> one? 
>   Again, I agree with what Fitzix is saying, everyone I know who 
> develops for Microsoft thinks that the IDE is massively cool, and 
> haven't the faintest idea how to invoke a compiler from the command 
> line, so if we want them to use our product, we have to implement a 
> simmilar, preferably much better development platform, again a point 
> Fitzix made.

Drag and drop the modules on a project, compile.
Not Makefile.am, Makefile.in, aclocal, automake, autoconf, Makefile,
configure,m4,bash,shell,sed.

>  But better from the MS-DevStudio user standpoint (as 
> opposed to mine, which would almost certainly not sell ;).
Savings in time sells, to average windows developer, the msdn is free
anyway, who do you know has spent money on msdn. You can even get
mathematica via gnutella. But I installed the new gpledd macsyma, that
resulted after 15 years of MIT development. The freedom comes from
access to the source, for learning purposes.

The introspector XML patch, the XML schema I sent to you in my last
mail, those are machine generated data structures that represent the
thought patterns in the gcc.

That is something that you cannot do with closed source applications,
create a GOEDEL number out of the source code, and create derivitives.

> One final point, and I'll shut up :)  I hear a lot of people saying 
Keep talking, I am listening. We need more people who talk, and who
act.

> "Don't just copy what they do, improve on it!"  I agree, but I think
> we  need to take it a step further than that.  We need to be > 
> completely  pro-active, creating an overall strategy, fitting with
GNU > Ideals of 
> course, to ensure dotgnu superseeds .net in functionallity as well as
> 
> popularity.  Do we have anyone making industry contacts?  Do we
Most of the gnu sucessful tools have been better implementations of
other tools. The GNU ideals are freedom, but are these are not always
good at innovation.

We also need a business model. We need to think about how to attract
developers. The standard GNU developer model does not fit the busy
working schedule of the avarage coporate programmer. We need a way to
harness the curiousity and that need for money in the world. A way to
get people who see us as a advantage, not as a cost. 

Just because it is free does not make it cheap. MS tools are cheaper to
get, use and install. Most people just get pirate copies. The
installation costs are lower. The software is easier to use. 

The cost benefit analysis must be rationally thought through, 
my idea is of componentization of the existing gnu tools with a publish
C# API. This will allow via a reflective introspective programming to
be  creating entirely via the reflection class lib. If MS can spec out
software, so can I. 

The idea that APIS can be programmatically generated is like the idea
that people can use objects they have never seen before, but know the
public interface to a phone can make a call.

> > This aspect provides a unique
> > opportunity to place Free Software at the forefront of the
> > industry if we take our steps wisely.
yes-
>>  Interoperability truly is
> > king, but we must do more than interoperate.  We must create the
> > best Dam*ed development environment that ever existed.  In the
To do that, we need to break down borders and boundries between the
compilers and the users. We need to share information safely between
the compiler and the IDE. 

> > 
> > <http://dotgnu.info/pipermail/developers/2002-January/001599.html>
> > 
> > I know IDE fans are out there, but I believe it can be better
> replaced 
> > with *interoperating* components. I have a start on that tool
> concept, 

Yes there is an interest.

Mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com