[Ocaml-biz] IDEs

[Brian Hurt]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Let's say, for sake of argument, I wanted to actively prevent you from
> using Vi to program in OCaml.  How would I do that?  I don't see a way
> for me to do that.  So on this point, what's to discuss?

1) Build the editor, build tool, and compiler into one huge integrated
application (scheme).  Trying to combine the build tool and the compiler
(Java) wins you negative points.

2) Require the source code to be something other than plaintext (APL)

3) Selling my manager on the idea that everyone in development should be 
required to use the same editor, to prevent "compatibility problems".

> 
> > If you
> > want to use vi, you'll need to spend some time futzing.
> > Fine, I'm cool with that.
> 
> What you describe is exactly the situation we have today.  If you're
> cool with the situation today, ok, your needs are met.  Tons of people's
> needs aren't met though.  Ergo the importance of packaging, marketing,
> and promoting a core set of tools that works really well.  I think it
> should probably only promote 1 IDE, Eclipse.  Guys like you can / will
> always find ways to cobble GNU Emacs, XEmacs, or Vim together.  Nobody
> can stop you from making yourselves happy.

Having used vi to maintain a VS development project, you're right.  But 
two things to notice: first, I was paid to do that.  Second, as has been 
commented several times, I'm not your typical programmer.  I will (if I 
have to) throw a disassembler at your development environment and make it 
work.  You can be hostile enough to other development environments that 
almost no one will use them.

> 
> > > It is about selling the initial experience.  This is
> > > ocaml-biz, so we talk about how to market to people.
> >
> > Yep.  And remember that there are more people out there to
> > market to than just Corporate Windows Developers.
> 
> Sure, there's all those Corporate Java Developers.  ;-)
> 
> Happy to hear more about how to market to open source
> cobble-my-own-stuff-together UNIXen.  But you seem to be saying, they
> don't have certain problems and aren't needing certain attentions.

Sigh.  Actually, I haven't even been addressing the issue of how to market 
to Linus Torvals and Richard Stallman.

> > Calling programmers 'line workers' is a whacked idea.
> > Programmers are
> > less like assembly line workers than they are lawyers, doctors, or
> > engineers.  We're hired because we know things.  How to best
> > do our jobs, for one.
> 
> You aren't feeling the exodus of jobs to India, China, Russia, and
> Eastern Europe yet, are you.


Bad managers exist- you don't have to prove that to me, I've worked for
the bozos.  Dumb managers have gotten quite enchanted with the idea of
shipping programming jobs overseas.  They're the sorts of managers I was
saying we have no chance with anyways.  Because they aren't deciding based
on the technical facts.  They're deciding on things we, the Ocaml 
community, have no control over what so ever.

If I was blessed by working under the only two "good" programming managers 
on the planet, we're screwed- both we the Ocaml community and we the human 
race.

> 
> > Admins- the
> > line workers- were doing it, replacing Windows NT with
> > Linux/Samba, often
> > in direct disobedience of "Windows only" orders.
> 
> Well, Linux also did a really good job of solving a particular problem.

Really?  Other than managing to stay up over a long weekend, not get 
infected with worms, and not cost tens of thousands of dollars, what 
problem does Linux solve that Windows doesn't?

Notice, the problems Linux solved were only the problems the admins had to 
worry about.  Which is why the CIOs and CTOs would issue grand 
pronouncements about how this company was a Microsoft-only shop, and using 
other OSs was strictly verboten, and the admins would ignore them and 
install Linux anyways.

> I'm not convinced OCaml solves *any* job in quite that way at this time.
> If you can come up with a job that OCaml can solve, that is so damn
> useful that lotsa line workers will deploy it everywhere despite orders
> to the contrary, let's hear it.  That would be our ideal showcase
> project.

In other words, how do we convince the techies?

> 
> Also, I'm totally glossing over the amount of labor it took to get Linux
> to that point.  If I had hundreds of people to work on an OCaml 3D
> engine, it could be exactly that sort of "spread like wildfire"
> technology.  But show me the labor?

Linux didn't start with that level of labor either.  It started with one 
kid in a college dorm, and grew from there.  

-- 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 
Brian