Java editor

[Chris Smith]

Who makes the guarantee on Eclipse? (I agree that it's pretty good; I
wouldn't rate it "excellent" for my particular style.) Do you get your money
back if not satisfied?

Absolutely! In fact, they'll give you a million times your money back
if you're not satified. (Disclaimer: offer not applicable if you
somehow managed to pay something for Eclipse, which would be silly, nor
to commercial Eclipse-based products like WSAD.)

 

[Roedy Green]

Hi. I was just wondering if someone can recommend a Java editor for
me. I'm looking for something that supports automatic indentation.

see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/ide.html

 

[Olle]

Vim and Emacs can both do that, but are tricky if you're new to them. (I

don't use emacs, but the vitutor tool gets up to basics quickly and
learning advanced features doesn't take so long).

I would NOT recommend either vi or Emacs to anyone who is interested
in a Java editor unless they already use them (and if they do they
most likely already know that they support more or less everything,
including indentation, and are quite good editors overall (except for
vi;-)).

As for GUI editors, the best IDEs seem to be Eclipse and NetBeans in
some order (potential flame war there).

True if and only if you add the word "free" before IDE, anyone who has
used IDEA (which cost money) knows that they are both a bit behind
trying to catch up.

 

[Twisted]

True if and only if you add the word "free" before IDE...

....as anybody sensible will do, since paying substantially more for
anything than its marginal cost of reproduction is both inefficient
and dumb, and invariably helps perpetuate some evil monopoly or
another by directly subsidizing it.

 

[Lew]

...as anybody sensible will do, since paying substantially more for
anything than its marginal cost of reproduction is both inefficient
and dumb, and invariably helps perpetuate some evil monopoly or
another by directly subsidizing it.

Unless you are paying for value over and above that provided by free or
cheaper alternatives.

The beauty of the Invisible Hand is that it tends to balance the supply and
demand equations. Value is a perceived attribute, and those with the means
and desire to obtain that value will pay for it, even to a degree
substantially higher than the reproduction cost. This supports no monopolies
necessarily, evil or otherwise; a free market economy tends to spawn
competition.

Case in point: Some brands of perfume reputedly do not sell well until their
price is raised to a point that achieves marketing credibility.

Case in point: The high sales of CDs, DVDs and the like for movies and games.

Economics is a social science, and reason and emotion both play a part.

 

[Patrick May]

I would NOT recommend either vi or Emacs to anyone who is interested
in a Java editor unless they already use them

Why not? Do you want to keep newbies trapped in IDE hell with no
hope of transcending to Emacs?

Regards,

Patrick

 

[Mike Schilling]

...as anybody sensible will do, since paying substantially more for
anything than its marginal cost of reproduction is both inefficient
and dumb, and invariably helps perpetuate some evil monopoly or
another by directly subsidizing it.

That may be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on Usenet, and that's no
small feat.

 

[Twisted]

Unless you are paying for value over and above that provided by free or
cheaper alternatives.

That only applies if there is scarcity. In the case of information
objects, that would have to be artificial scarcity (though it can be
even with physical objects). Causing artificial scarcity is evil,
negative-sum Pareto-suboptimal behavior tantamount to theft.
(Naturally, those that frequently perpetrate such crimes turn right
around and accuse those who try to reduce the scarcity "thieves" in
turn...as they can't think in any terms other than thievery, being
thieves themselves, not to mention people who think in, at best, zero-
sum terms.)

The beauty of the Invisible Hand is that it tends to balance the supply and
demand equations.

As long as some greedy idiot doesn't go and legislate a state-
sponsored monopoly, enshrine some form of artificial scarcity in law,
or create impediments in the law against trust-busting and competition
that would undermine their campaign donors' plans to engage in price-
fixing and the like, anyway.

Case in point: Some brands of perfume reputedly do not sell well until their
price is raised to a point that achieves marketing credibility.

The price is part of the product in this case, because someone is
buying "expensive perfume" rather than just "perfume". As in,
"expensive" is actually a trait they require, for some impressing-
gullible-folk sort of reason. (The smart, efficiency-minded sort will
obviously be underwhelmed by their spending decisions.) That doesn't
even create an exception to the rule, since the marginal cost of
reproduction of "a $100 bottle of perfume" is $100 almost by
definition -- if you're reproducing and selling the perfume for a
lower price, you're not reproducing 100 dollar bottles of perfume any
more. The marginal cost of "any perfume that smells the same as that
$100 brand" might be a lot less of course, and the product chemically
identical.

Case in point: The high sales of CDs, DVDs and the like for movies and games.

Case of artificial scarcity in point, you mean.

 

[Twisted]

Why not? Do you want to keep newbies trapped in IDE hell with no
hope of transcending to Emacs?

I'd be more worried about newbies going a few rounds with the pointy-
tailed, brimstone-smelling ruler of Emacs hell and then giving up on
the entire concept of programming not realizing that it's just Emacs
that makes things unnecessarily more complicated and makes them stop
making sense.

This applies equally to the other netherworld and its equally vile
ruler. Pun intended.

 

[Twisted]

That may be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on Usenet, and that's no
small feat.

Barbs from a small mind, trying to grasp large issues in economics and
clearly failing. If you actually believe any of the fascist* and
communist** propaganda copiously flowing out of the big entertainment
industry lobbying organizations lately, I'd suggest you stop by
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm and drink
down a hearty draught of clue sometime soon.

* Fascism tending to involve government meddling in free enterprise,
price controls and the like, and also strong corporate influence on
government.
** Communism tending to also involve government meddling in free
enterprise, price controls and the like, and state-enforced and state-
owned monopolies.

(Another turn-around trick of the monopolists: they like the
information communism of state-sponsored monopolies and artificially
propped up prices, and turn right around and accuse their betters who
support information free trade and market competition of being
communists.)

 

[Mike Schilling]

Barbs from a small mind, trying to grasp large issues in economics and
clearly failing. If you actually believe any of the fascist* and
communist** propaganda copiously flowing out of the big entertainment
industry lobbying organizations lately, I'd suggest you stop by
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm and drink
down a hearty draught of clue sometime soon.

Previously, I said that your comment was stupid. Now it's clear that you
think that software developers don't need to be paid, since you talk about
the cost of reproduction but ignore the cost of development. And that
you're happy using free software from IBM (Eclipse) and Sun (Netbeans), but
think that paying a small company like IntelliJ for their work perpetuates a
monopoly. And that you throw around words like "fascist" and "communist"
with no notion of what they mean. Hint: wanting to be paid for your work is
neither.

You are a waste of space.

 

[Twisted]

Previously, I said that your comment was stupid. Now it's clear that you
think that software developers don't need to be paid, since you talk about
the cost of reproduction but ignore the cost of development.

Obviously you didn't bother to follow that link.

Copies of a piece of published software aren't (or at least shouldn't
be) scarce and therefore aren't (or at least shouldn't be) expensive.
However, serious programming talent is scarce, and someone who has
some will always be able to market their skill so long as there
remains a computer-using civilization around here. Their expertise
with code they wrote will be in demand if that code ever becomes
popular, and they may also be hired to custom-make software by someone
(someone who needs it for their own productivity, rather than so they
can sell copies at artificially inflated prices). A lot of software is
developed even now by people for their *own* productivity, and the
development is paid for down the road by the productivity improvement
it causes.

It's also worth noting that other industries manage to fund R&D
without extortionate pricing schemes and state-enforced monopolies.
Car companies compete heavily, unlike operating system companies. And
the result seems to be better cars, with more R&D, not less. While the
OS market stagnates. Lots of innovation is seen in the unpopular (and
free!) Linux OS, while the best the giant, money-sucking Microsoft can
manage after over five years is the piece of shit they call Vista, in
the way of "improvements" over WinXP? Something is clearly wrong
there. In practise, companies with government-granted monopolies on
anything don't tend to do much innovating; they tend to line their own
pockets with half the ill-gotten gains, and spend the rest on
aggressive marketing. MS is one culprit. The entire pharmaceutical
industry is another, and some of their advertising is downright
dangerous and irresponsible.

It is a complete fallacy to assume that if copies of software (or
music, or movies, or anything else) were free, the talent wouldn't get
paid. The better talent would get paid a fair amount more, and get a
LOT more exposure, in fact. Some mediocre but heavily marketed
"talent" (the Britneys of the world) might do more poorly -- oh how I
weep -- and some corporate fatcats whose chief talent is in the field
of endeavor that economists call "rent-seeking" and political science
types "gaming the system" (boo hoo!)...

Now go read what's at that link I provided. Don't worry - it won't
bite, although there are pdf files. If you're really worried, paste
the link into Firefox, and at the pdfs, right click them, "save as",
do a full virus and badware scan, and read them offline later.

 

[Mike Schilling]

Obviously you didn't bother to follow that link.

Can't speak for yourself?

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

It's also worth noting that other industries manage to fund R&D without
extortionate pricing schemes and state-enforced monopolies. Car
companies compete heavily, unlike operating system companies. And the
result seems to be better cars, with more R&D, not less. While the OS
market stagnates. Lots of innovation is seen in the unpopular (and
free!) Linux OS, while the best the giant, money-sucking Microsoft can
manage after over five years is the piece of shit they call Vista, in
the way of "improvements" over WinXP? Something is clearly wrong there.
In practise, companies with government-granted monopolies on anything
don't tend to do much innovating; they tend to line their own pockets
with half the ill-gotten gains, and spend the rest on aggressive
marketing. MS is one culprit. The entire pharmaceutical industry is
another, and some of their advertising is downright dangerous and
irresponsible.

You are basing all monopolies off of one, rather exceptional, example.
Even then, you're grasping at straws: I think many people would agree
that Windows is a rather bad OS (although it does have two good points:
its UI and Windows Explorer (not IE)), but Microsoft Office is still an
office suite that is rather unmatched: I have found no satisfactory
replacements for Excel or Powerpoint.

Monopolies have very good points that you ignore. First, they prevent
most efficiently the "tragedy of the commons;" without them, the
government would have to oh-so-badly intervene. As you seem so
enlightened on economics, there is no need for me to explain what that
is. Second, they impose a measure of standardization. And here, I'm
talking about /true/ monopolies, not /virtual/ monopolies. Would you
rather let the ICANN or the IANA dissolve as holding monopolies over web
controls and watch anarchy reign as the internet dissolves?

Finally, you are misusing the term "government-granted monopoly." A /
true/ government-granted monopoly would be my local water provider. It
spends very little money on advertising (I'm not sure if it even spent
any over the debacle on trying to extend the network to Great Falls), and
I might add that I probably pay less for water than you do because of
this monopoly. MS is just an example of where the government decided that
the OS market is not exhibiting monopolistic qualities.

In short: go back to school and take an economics class. While you're
there, you might want to take Statistics 101 as well.

 

[Twisted]

Can't speak for yourself?

Sure can, and did, but if you want a lot of evidence, detailed
argumentation, and whatnot, there's little point in my reinventing the
wheel instead of pointing you to the ready-made one at
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

 

[Twisted]

[snip]

Oh boy. My film came out fuzzy and overexposed, and the needle on this
gauge is jumping madly. Looks like there's a big bogon flux developing
in this area. Please excuse me while I go put on my Tyvek suit and
respirator...

....back. Er, you're the one who needs to go back to school and take an
economics class. A few swift point by point rebuttals for your
edification:

* Monopolies that are tightly regulated may behave themselves, and are
often desirable in key built-out infrastructure, such as pipes, wires,
and roads; or state ownership even. Monopolies that are not regulated
are another matter entirely.
* The tragedy of the commons occurs when a regenerating resource is
consumed faster than it recovers, generally as a result of treating as
a public good something that more properly should be a metered good.
In particular it has to be consumed by its use in some manner; in the
classic example, the grass in the commons is consumed when people
graze animals there, and there is net transport of nitrogen and
phosphorus out of the area. Metering access and using the money to
fund fertilizing and aerating the soil from time to time fixes the
problem handily. However, information objects are not consumed by
their use. In fact, they tend to actually be *produced* by their use!
This argues for exactly the opposite treatment -- if not as a public
good, then as one that's negatively metered, so you *get* paid to
receive the information. Interestingly exactly one industry does pay
others to receive content -- the advertising industry. It is currently
doing reasonably well.
* I am not basing all monopolies off one. I gave multiple examples
besides Microsoft: several pharmaceutical companies. It's easy to find
lots more.
* Standardization is easily achieved without a monopoly. Defacto
standards emerge naturally from market forces in the face of
competition -- VHS winning over Betamax is perhaps the classic
example. Windows and Mac interface standards are closely similar, as
they copy off one another while competing with one another. On the
other hand, we see monopolies abuse and misuse standards an awful lot.
MS is especially guilty of this, especially often ("embrace and
extend", anyone?), but is certainly not the only culprit. And one
often gets BAD standards, consumer-rights-hostile ones, such as the
DVD and now HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards, which arbitrarily restrict
users from navigating the disc the way they want, making personal-use
backups, and the like.
* The IP monopolies are actively eroding the few remaining restraints
on them (e.g. fair use, first sale) by purchasing judges and
legislators with their ill-gotten gains.
* If any of your precious theories about innovation being impossible
without royalty-type incentives were true, there'd be no thriving open
source software community -- and in particular, no NetBeans, no
Eclipse, and likely, no Java at all. Think on that for a little while
-- just keep an eye on your core temperature, since it seems your CPUs
may have to struggle a fair bit on that one.
* Anyone caught recommending a paid product over a free equivalent is
reasonably suspected of having an ulterior motive. In the interests of
disclosure, are any of you employed by the monopoly selling one of
these products? Be honest, now.
* One last point: The sale of any product whose price tag is 99%
margin and 1% parts and labour, instead of 1% margin and 99% parts and
labour, is a scam, pure and simple.

I won't participate further in this thread. Any more educating you
need can be had over at http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
which I am sure will also greatly interest our mutual audience of
lurkers. The rational among them (and among you) will draw the
inevitable conclusions from the evidence presented here and there, as
well as the observation that one side is being calm and rational and
sometimes humorous while the other is exploding with evident fury,
insulting people and launching into polemics and tirades, and exhibits
the humorlessness of those who are outmatched in mortal combat.

By the way, has nobody here ever even heard of OpenOffice? It has
equivalents of all the MSOffice apps, including Excel.

 

[Mike Schilling]

* If any of your precious theories about innovation being impossible
without royalty-type incentives were true, there'd be no thriving open
source software community -- and in particular, no NetBeans, no
Eclipse, and likely, no Java at all. Think on that for a little while

All of which were developed by large companies for strategic reasons of
their own.

* Anyone caught recommending a paid product over a free equivalent is
reasonably suspected of having an ulterior motive. In the interests of
disclosure, are any of you employed by the monopoly selling one of
these products? Be honest, now.

I recommended IntelliJ as superior to bith Netbenas and eclipse. I have no
connection with that company other than being a satisfied user.

Oh, and calling that tiny company a "monopoly", for the second time now,
confirms that you're a moron.

 

[Russell Wallace]

And (having been a text editor + command line compiler guy until now) I
finally got around to trying out Netbeans and Eclipse. I didn't get
anywhere with Eclipse, but Netbeans seems good; I'm pleasantly impressed
with the way when you try something you think ought to work, it
typically does. I'll recommend it to anyone who, like I was, is thinking
they really ought to move up to a modern IDE but don't have a lot of
spare time to invest in getting up to speed.

Tip: the option to create a project from an existing source folder
works, but I recommend instead creating a blank project with a Main
class, so you can see how Netbeans likes to organize things, then just
copying all your source files into the resulting source folder.

 

[Twisted]

All of which were developed by large companies for strategic reasons of
their own.

That doesn't refute anything I've said. There are plenty of other
reasons than expected revenue from the direct sale of copies to
develop software.

Oh, and calling that tiny company a "monopoly", for the second time now,
confirms [insult trimmed in the interests of civility and decorum]

Can anyone else copy and sell "IntelliJ", legally? No? Then they have
a monopoly -- a state-enforced one at that -- on "IntelliJ".

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

 

[Lew]

Can anyone else copy and sell "IntelliJ", legally? No? Then they have
a monopoly -- a state-enforced one at that -- on "IntelliJ".

But not on Java programmers' editors. The definition of "monopoly" does not
extend to the use of trademarks but to dominance in a market segment. You
aren't seriously suggesting that IntelliJ has such a dominant position in the
programmers' editor segment as to suppress competition, surely?

It is best in this type of discourse not to emulate Humpty Dumpty from
/Through the Looking Glass/ by changing the definitions of terms to
idiosyncratic ones.