Re: WDSc direction (was WDSC 4.0 Machine Requirements)

Well said - thank you.

At 12:31 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
>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