Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > How to develop without an IDE?

Reply
Thread Tools

How to develop without an IDE?

 
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
On 4/24/2012 12:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:14 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'll tell you what no Java developer's career depends on: being able to
>> write a makefile to build a Java project.

>
> Does someone's career depend on being able to use Ant? If it
> does, then why can he not simply pick it up when he needs it?
>
> I prefer to learn to use tools that will be of use to me in
> preference to those that only might. There is so much software out
> there that I have to budget my learning time to items which will give
> me a return.


It is almost 100% sure that a developer will need to work with
Ant within a reasonable time frame (like 5 years).

But it is only 1/3 of the problem that is the actual lack
of Ant skills - the 2/3 of the problem is the attitude.

Arne



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
On 4/24/2012 9:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 24.04.2012 00:15, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23.04.2012 06:57, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
>>>>> mixing things.
>>>>
>>>> Which, if followed religiously, will lead you into a situation where it
>>>> can get really awkward to do things with tool A which would be extremely
>>>> easy with tool B.
>>>
>>> This isn't necessarily a problem, particularly if a person is already
>>> familiar with tool A while being completely unaware that tool B even
>>> existed.

>>
>> Whoever claims he is Java developer AND unaware of ant cannot be a
>> professional.

>
> It was a hyperbole.
>
> And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a
> portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their
> profession.


That is true.

But best practices for Java programming is what works for professionals
not what hobby programmers consider fun.

>> Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead
>> of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy.

>
> It isn't. But wasting time checking each and every alternative that some
> bloke on the internet said was the winning strategy is also not a winning
> strategy.


Not particular relevant.

We are discussing whether to use one of the tools that 95-99% of
all Java developers use.

We are not discussing every alternative under the some.

Learning from others is a winning strategy.

> Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to
> "write and use makefiles to build java applications". It doesn't rely on
> static pattern rules, and instead uses suffix rules. I don't know how well
> this works, but you are free to give it a try and see if it doesn't work.
>
> On a side note, I don't believe that the point is to prove that the make
> tool can be made to work better than alternatives such as ant, but only that
> it actually works.


All experience shows that make and Java is not a good mix.

Use the tools designed for the task.

Arne

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
wrote:

> That's a good find, and I appreciate you pointing it out to this list.
> It's actually been several years since I've dealt with make's build
> rules in any way, and a small refresher wouldn't be bad for me.


Thanks. I'm glad I could help. I was only aware of this because a while ago
I happened to stumble on it while reading up on suffix rules. It appears
that nowadays there isn't a lot of people who write their own makefiles,
instead relying on tools to generate scripts for tools that generate scripts
for tools that... So, this sort of stuff tends to be left in obscurity.


> However, in the Java world, ant is the standard build program. (Or
> maven; however I haven't got into maven yet.) There's no way you can
> avoid ant. Any project that exists in Java, any deliverable you get
> from an outside contractor or firm, will invariably use ant. It is
> simply "the standard."
>
> So I'd recommend you learn to use it. First, it avoids fumbling around
> making your own static rules, and second you will have to learn it
> eventually, regardless. So it might as well be on your own terms, and
> on your own schedule.


I see what you mean.


> I found ant's use of XML off-putting at first as well, but it becomes
> easier to deal with, and more natural to write, after you've hand
> written a couple of basic project definitions. Just go for it, and
> don't sweat the new stuff you'll learn.


The XML bit was really off-putting, mainly because XML is off-putting in
general.

One aspect where apache ant appears to be more helpful than make is the
explicit support for setting up a project to handle compilation on a
dedicated directory somewhere in the project tree. This is also possible
with make, but it requires a tiny bit of added work than simply pointing out
a path.


Thanks for the help,
Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:15:30 +0100, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
>> relying on an IDE? If it is, where can I find any information on how to
>> set up this sort of project?
>>

> Simple. Do just as you would for, say, a C project but use Ant instead of
> make.
>
>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>> makefile.
>>

> Its the norm to use a single build.xml (ant's equivalent of Makefile) to
> do everything that make will, i.e. build, clean the source structure,
> install the jarfiles. The only significant differences are that its
> working with a package hierarchy rather than a set of modules in separate
> directories and that it will usually run javadocs too.
>
> This is how I usually work with Java projects, often over an ssh session.


Thanks for the help, Martin. I had read your post a while ago, but waited
until after I read up on your suggestion before posting a reply.

It appears you are right on the money. As an added bonus, as some IDEs rely
on apache ant to manage builds, it appears it makes it possible to develop
with IDEs and text editors (and also switch between both), not only to write
code but also update the build script, without experiencing any hickup in
the process. That's nice.


Once again, thanks for the help, Martin. Kudos!
Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
markspace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
On 4/24/2012 6:33 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> The XML bit was really off-putting, mainly because XML is off-putting in
> general.



You can copy the basic build file from the tutorial, and save it as a
"template" for future build files. You only have to change two strings
normally to get it to work on a new project.


> One aspect where apache ant appears to be more helpful than make is the
> explicit support for setting up a project to handle compilation on a
> dedicated directory somewhere in the project tree. This is also possible
> with make, but it requires a tiny bit of added work than simply pointing out
> a path.



Another thing that ant does is makes portability easier. I develop on
Windows. Ant converts all paths with a '/' to the proper file separator
for the local OS. That's a nice feature if you've got a team switching
between Unix and Windows.

There's other portability issues too, like using FileSets or PatternSets
instead of relying on tools like ls, find and grep that might not be
available on non-Unix systems.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Klemme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
On 04/25/2012 03:09 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.


Ad hominem isn't really helpful either...

> Either way, you are
> not helpful. So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste
> your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.


Lew is usually pretty good at exhibiting the weak points of an argument.
People tend to not like to hear that, but it is totally possible that
they waste good advice that way...

Kind regards

robert
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
On 04/24/2012 07:03 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>
>> Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> I would prefer to develop
>>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>>> being forced to use another tool.

>>
>> The sound of the career death knells tolling.

>
> You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able to


No, I'm not.

> manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project. That's a bad
> assumption. I would bet that a significant number of people who write Java
> code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build script, let
> alone took the time to learn that tool.


My point went right over your head, apparently.

I was referring to your unwillingness to learn tools and skills needed for new
environments. Your resistance to learning is what is the death knell. That's a
universal requirement for success as a programmer, not just in Java, and
without the commitment to learn and grow, you'll wither and die, or worse, end
up a manager because your programming skills, such as they are, will utterly
cease to be relevant and you won't be able to adapt for lack of practice.
Bongggg. Bongggg.

I'll take your bet. How much? Every single Java shop where I've worked since
2000 or 2001 has used Ant, or later, Maven, or both to build Java
applications. Every single Java programmer with whom I've worked in that time,
and every one with whom I've associated in Java Users Groups, has been at
least minimally conversant with Ant.

And what do you deem "significant"? The worst 5% of Java programmers? The
worst 10%? How much to be significant?

In every profession there are the virtuosi and the, let's call them barely
competent. Those in the Java world who refuse to learn the standards of that
world doom themselves to the latter category, just as in any profession. Those
who refuse to learn, or take the universal advice (has any of our experts
advised you to ignore Ant and focus on make for Java?) are hurting themselves
and all their clients. Do you really want to be that guy?

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../c/cf/Friz.jpg
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
Rui Maciel wrote:
> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll. Either way, you are
> not helpful. So, if you don't have anything helpful to add then go waste
> your time and your wild imagination elsewhere.


Plonk.

Too bad for you.

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../c/cf/Friz.jpg
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
Arne Vajh├Şj wrote:

> On 4/24/2012 7:36 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Arne Vajh├Şj wrote:
>>
>>> Given that with mentioning any specific IDE's/editors then
>>> an editor is a subset of an IDE, then that does not make
>>> much sense..

>>
>> It can only make no sense if you believe that any statement regarding how
>> a particular text editor compares to the text editor made available by a
>> specific IDE is something which can be expressed objectively in absolute
>> terms. It isn't. Taste and personal preferences are, well, personal.
>> These are subjective opinions, which each of us holds, that reflect
>> nothing more than our personal tastes, preferences and even habits.

>
> ????
>
> There is certainly a strong element in personal preferences for
> specific tools.
>
> But that has absolutely no relevance.
>
> You were not talking about specific tools but about IDE's and
> text editors.
>
> And you were talking about features provided not whether
> you liked them or not.


I talked about the features provided by some text editors and some IDEs, and
to me some text editors provide a set of features which are invaluable and
still up to this day can't be had with any IDE. Surely you understand that
the decision of whether something is better or worse than something else is
subjective and a matter of personal opinion. Don't you?

Then, I don't know about you, but when I express an opinion I express my own
and no one else's, and I also do not believe I represent anyone but me.
Don't you, or do you actually believe that when you state your opinion you
are actually speaking for a group of people?


> Well - you brought up the discussion about features provide by IDE's
> and editors.
>
> And we pointed out that you were wrong because editor+tools does
> not have less features than editor.


And so you admit that you got confused and in the process managed to both
entirely miss the point and fail to read or, worse, failed to understand
what I wrote. Quite possibly both are related. After all, no one but
yourself said anything about IDEs having more or less features than editors.
No one else made that mistake. If you doubt this then do point out exactly
where anyone else, particularly me, made that idiotic claim. Don't be
surprised if you find yourself on a wild goose chase or facing the fact that
you failed to read something.

So, if you have a problem with silly claims then, well, just stop making
them, and stop using your imagination as a basis for silly arguments.


> And the rest is just your hopeless pathetic attempts to avoid
> admitting your fault.


It looks like you don't enjoy making mistakes, and when you do you have a
hard time admitting to them. Resorting to name-calling doesn't help
you,either, as it isn't a magic matra that makes all your screwups go
magically away. It only shows how desperate you become.

So, come back after you searched where exactly anyone else made that idiotic
claim you invented, and then let's see who is is engaged in "hopeless
pathetic attempts to avoid admitting" their fault.


Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-25-2012
Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 04/25/2012 03:09 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> So, you either are a functional illiterate or a troll.

>
> Ad hominem isn't really helpful either...


In this case it's not ad hominem. If he is basing his complaints on
something he believes he read instead of what has been actually written.
This inability to comprehend what has been read is, by definition,
functional illiteracy, and someone who suffers from this problem is a
functinal illiterate.

On the other hand, if he actually read and was able to understand what he
wrote then his repeated intention to willingly misrepresent what others have
said is both dishonest and provocative; hence, the troll.

So, as this was not about "negating the truth" but just a case of calling a
spade a spade, this was no ad hominem.

But I agree this is a a waste of time, and completely unhelpful.


Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Is there a way to develop SSRS reports without using VS 2005?? S_K ASP .Net 0 09-05-2008 08:42 PM
Can I develop an interactive site without using any establishedframework? tenxian Java 7 04-22-2008 02:24 AM
How can I develop a Web Application using ruby without rails Pradeep Belagapu Ruby 5 03-25-2008 03:06 PM
Can you develop .NET apps for IPOD OS =?Utf-8?B?bXRlcm1vdWw=?= ASP .Net 0 07-01-2005 02:55 PM



Advertisments