WDSc direction (was WDSC 4.0 Machine Requirements)

David said

>I develop applications that target multiple
>systems in various languages.  Eclipse and
>therefore WDSc is the first to recognize that
>a common platform allows tools vendors to
>concentrate on what they do best.

And this is exactly the problem WDSc is supposed to solve I think.  Someday,
I'll be in the same boat and will love having an integrated suite at my
disposal.

>I don't see the problem with bundling options
>in Eclipse unless they are tied together
>unnecessarily.

As usual, my emotion is more evident than my reason, and my email suffers
for it.  You're right: plugins are a great way to integrate the various
bits.  But today, those various bits AS DELIVERED don't really satisfy the
green screen guy who just wants Code.  If I understand the Java folks
rightly, they're not ready to toss VAJ yet either.  So neither faction is
happy.  Yet.

The bundling issue that I'm thinking about is the 'talking about it' part.
We've especially seen it when a Code-only user tries to ask questions.  A
typical email will be along the lines of "I'm using WDSc 4.0 SP1 and xyz
doesn't work like it did in 5.0.  WDSc needs help!"  Is it Code?  LPEX?
RSE?  Tough to tell.  So WDSc gets a bad rap as a whole, when it's really
some plugin that's being addressed.

Phil's excellent comments about the intent of WDSc are very welcome indeed.
My overheated "collection of parts being sold as an IDE" remark was mostly
supposed to be a comment on the fact that many of the components are still a
work in progress as opposed to a completed suite.  But it bears repeating
that many of us "think" about a specific bit of functionality but "speak"
about WDSc as a whole.  So we hear the marketing chant "it's in there!" and
are taking them completely at their word.  It's really "We're putting it in
there!"

All in all I am happy with the direction things are going; I'm only trying
to explain some of the thoughts that us green screen types are having as we
move into the future.

  --buck