Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Jazz Technical Lead Dr. Erich Gamma

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the sing-me-a-tune dept.

Java 83

As IBM continues to build out Jazz, their community-oriented development site, technical lead Dr. Erich Gamma has offered to answer questions about Jazz or anything else in his realm of expertise. Among his many accomplishments, Erich worked with Kent Beck on the Java unit testing framework, JUnit, and was actively involved until JUnit 4. Dr. Gamma was also one of the fathers of Eclipse and the original lead on the Eclipse Java development tools. Feel free to fire away on Eclipse, Java, JUnit, the Rational suite, the Jazz site, or anything else you think Erich might be able to answer. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply. Update 19:05 GMT by SM: As pointed out by user Hop-Frog, Dr. Gamma is also co-author of the influential computer science textbook Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software.

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28532839)

Dr Gamma was also one of the fathers of Eclipse and the original lead on the Eclipse Java development tools.

Eclipse has been going on since the early 2000s and six days ago enjoyed the release of Galileo (v3.5). If you've had time to look at recent release, what are your opinions on what Eclipse has become? Has it made any wrong turns? How do you respond to criticisms of "bloat" or "too resource intensive"? Do you see it becoming more than what it is or transforming?

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533155)

Plugins.

Eclipse is an awesome platform for Java. As good as Netbeans. Over the years I've checked it out and I've never felt the desire to stay with it like I do with Netbeans.

But when it comes to developing in other languages, Eclipse just doesn't cut and Netbeans blows the doors off of it.

Some examples:

When I downloaded the previous version of Galileo, from the menu I installed the plugins for C++. I couldn't get the C++ compiling and linking to work.

BPEL?!?! They wanted me to GO BACK a couple of versions of Eclipse. I couldn't even find it on the net.

Anyway, that's not the Eclipse foundations problem. What is their problem is the dependencies installation of the plugins. There's been times where I try to install a plugin and after a while it says I need another, the that dependency says I need a couple of more, and then those dependencies say I need more, and eventually, one dependency fails. Spent a couple of hours over that. What can't Eclipse do all that horseshit for me?

There's other things that I don't like about the UI and the way Eclipse handles projects and their dependencies in Java. I went to Netbeans six months ago and never looked back. I am very happy with Netbeans and I don't see any reason to try to go back to Eclipse.

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533355)

I agree that dependencies are the biggest problem in Eclipse. Right now it's impossible to use Eclipse Galileo with RadRails. There is an alpha version of Aptana, but it doesn't support neither Galileo nor RadRails. And some plugins are just impossible to install because that would create unresolvable dependencies. Eclipse is meant to be a multipart modular system -- why can't packages just be backwards compatible?

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (1)

Oswald (235719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534197)

I know jack shit about anything this guy's talking about, but it seems unlikely it's actually a troll. Could somebody with mod points (and a clue) look at this post, please?

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (4, Funny)

A Big Gnu Thrush (12795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534339)

Agreed. Not a troll. Valid criticisms of Eclipse.

Netbeans, on the other hand, is only used by pedophiles, so GP should be ignored on those grounds.

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28583459)

Your comment about Netbeans users isn't helpful or accurate, and it certainly isn't funny.

Re:The Directions of the Eclipse Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28660043)

I dunno, I thought it was funny

While staying with the J convention (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28532919)

Why did you essentially name it J ass?

I can't figure out what Jazz is... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533007)

Reading the About page is useless. The impression I get is that this is a fancy marketing scheme for Rational products. Which, is business as usual for Rational...they market well to managers and are more trouble than they're worth to the people that have to actually use them.

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534143)

Reading the About page is useless. The impression I get is that this is a fancy marketing scheme for Rational products. Which, is business as usual for Rational...they market well to managers and are more trouble than they're worth to the people that have to actually use them.

You describe the very experience I had. Our manager decided we were going to do Rational. We spent lots of time and money on training, hardware, installation services, etc. Everybody hated it. The developers would deal with the ClearQuest windows interface okay, but when we tried to get the users to report issues using the web interface, they revolted, and so we developed our own solution with integration to the CQ back-end.

When ClearCase worked and everybody followed the plan, it was okay (but a HUGE resource hog, and nobody could work with it over VPN). But administration took a *lot* of time. On more than one occasion a computer would be re-imaged or a consultant would leave, and "checked-out" files that people needed were locked (meaning you can't even get a snapshot), and digging through the VOB to fix an issue like that was a PITA, even with some of the scripts I developed to deal with that and other issues.

Don't even get me started on all the crap we had to deal with using Rose. Some of the developers even started trying to do round-trip engineering. That was my 2nd experience with software that promised to do that and failed miserably (the first was Oracle Designer). Maybe it will be useful in the future. Here's a hint if you've never tried it yourself: get your design as close as you can, and generate your starter code from it, but if you think you're going to get an updated model after you've been coding for more than a couple of days, you're in for some major disappointment.

When that manager left, we started migrating to SubVersion, Trac, and some home-grown tools, and threw away just about everything else other the Requisite Pro (still too much documentation "locked" into that tool). It took us almost 2 years to extricate ourselves from that bloated garbage. We're much more productive now, though.

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (3, Informative)

BillHiggins (921577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534457)

Disclosure: I am a developer on Jazz and Rational Team Concert.

I can't speak for all of Rational or all of our users, but I can speak as a member of a development team that uses Rational Team Concert. When we were building what became Rational Team Concert (the first Jazz-based product), we made it an early priority (like 2 years before we shipped 1.0) that we would use Team Concert for our day to day development of Team Concert. Since we build Jazz and Team Concert from the ground up (read: from scratch), the early days of self-hosting were very painful, but because of this pain and the commitment of our developers to make continuous improvements, it's turned into a very useful well-integrated tool over the past couple of years.

We've had very good internal grassroots of Team Concert within IBM (I can't speak about customer uptake) and have received very positive feedback from customers and fellow IBMers about what we've done and where we're going with Jazz.

It's certainly not perfect and there's much more to do, but I assure you that Jazz is useful technology. It's not simply a "fancy marketing scheme for Rational products". Maybe try it out and judge for yourself.

Thanks,
Bill Higgins (bhiggins@us.ibm.com / http://twitter.com/BillHiggins [twitter.com] / http://billhiggins.us/ [billhiggins.us] )

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28535783)

Is Jazz a technology, an initiative, a website, a community, or a platform? If it's not too late, you should push to have the ambiguity of the name eliminated. Slapping a "Jazz" label on everything is not going to serve you any better than when Microsoft tried to slap the label of .NET on everything. If it is ultimately a technology, clearly state that, and clearly state what it does. And get that information on the front page! Don't burry it under the layers of marketing speak.

Let's try this. .NET really was: A VM (sort of), new programming languages, and a comprehensive standard object library.

Now, fill in this blank.

Jazz is: _______________________

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (3, Informative)

BillHiggins (921577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28536207)

Thanks for the feedback. Your admonition about not slapping the Jazz label on everything is something we have to be careful about and don't always succeed on. I guess I don't see the contradiction that you do - why can't Jazz be a technology platform and an initiative? Jazz is not a web site, though we obviously have a web site (with a nice short URL). I looked at the About page you referenced (https://jazz.net/about/) and it's basically accurate, though in sort of IBM Professional English.

Here's how I would explain Jazz to another developer if I ran into him or her at a conference:

"I work on a technology at IBM called Jazz. What we're trying to do is make it easier for teams of people to build better software by making it easier for them to collaborate together. We're building a core technology stack ("Jazz") and we're building a bunch of products on top of it that address different parts of the software lifecycle - e.g. requirements, development, testing, build, move to production. If Jazz is going to succeed as a platform, we have to make it very possible to tie a lot of data together. You see, one of the things that we've learned is that it's not physically possible for human beings to build a single tool that solves every problem - the complexity is too great the interdependencies between components is too brittle. We believe that the only way all of these tools are going to work together is to define simple standard protocols and simple standard formats (open service for lifecycle collaboration - http://open-services.net/ [open-services.net] ) built on top of standard Internet and web protocols (like http) and formats like AtomPub. Our Jazz-based products integrate together using this sort of loosely coupled web style and we're starting to integrate with business partners as well. Another thing I like about working on Jazz is the fact that we develop in the open at Jazz.net. Many of the leaders on our project like Erich Gamma, John Wiegand, and Dave Thomson came from Eclipse, and from that experience they came to realize that software turns out better when you open high-bandwidth direct channels with your users and extenders, so we're doing that with Jazz, even though it's commercial software."

That's about as simple as I can make it. I'm not sure if you're trying to understand or just to throw stones. If you'd like to learn more, there's some good info at Jazz.net, we're on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/IBMJazz) or you can find a bunch of us on Twitter. http://jazz.net/community/twitter/ [jazz.net] . If you still think it's a bunch of marketing B.S. then that's that, but we have quite a few happy users, and we're working hard to make it better.

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28536647)

The description on open-services.net is much clearer. So if I have this right, Jazz is basically about standardizing protocols and formats so that process tools created by different people can interop. So, for example, a Bugzilla defect could become a ClearQuest CR, which could become a Team Foundation task. Or ReqPro requirements could trace to Testopia test cases. Assuming all the tools mentioned implemented the standard. Is that correct?

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (2, Interesting)

BillHiggins (921577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28536823)

Sorry, Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) is an effort that IBM started to produce the standard protocols and formats that are intended to allow integration via data-level and UI-level artifact linking. OSLC would not allow a Bugzilla defect to "become" a ClearQuest CR, but it would allow someone to link a ReqPro or DOORS (or whatever) requirement to anyone who implements the OSLC change management protcols and formats. An analogy is that a feed reader can do useful things with most any Atom/RSS feed.

The Jazz technology platform underlies Rational's products and implements the OSLC protocols and formats. We're trying to create very useful standalone products (Rational Team Concert) that support parts of the software lifecycle and can integrate with other tools that help with other parts of the software lifecycle using the OSLC protocols as the integration mechanism (as opposed to a shared technology stack ala Eclipse, .NET, etc.)

If you're interested, Steve Abrams and Carl Zetie of IBM and Mik Kersten of Tasktop (and Mylyn) just did a developerWorks podcast on collaborating together on the change management OSLC specs: http://www.developerfusion.com/media/16828/abrams-zetie-and-kersten-on-first-fruits-from-the-oslc/ [developerfusion.com] (warning: they get lobbed quite a few softball questions but I think it's nonetheless an insightful discussion).

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28537239)

Would Jazz let me effectively replace anything in the Rational "stack" with another equivalent tool? Is it possible to add tools that are not in the stack as envisioned by Rational? Would the system work if I decide not to use some of the tools?

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1)

BillHiggins (921577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28541137)

Here's how I would describe it. Let's imagine you use Rational Team Concert for change management. You have a bunch of other tools and they integrate with your change management tool (Rational Team Concert) using the Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) protocol and formats.

You decide that you no longer want Rational Team Concert. You replace it with some other tool that implements the OSLC change management spec. All of your tools that were integrated with Team Concert continue to work with the new tool because it's using the same OSLC protocols and formats.

Likewise, the goal is that our Jazz-based tools (Team Concert, Quality Manager, Requirements Composer) will all implement the appropriate OSLC specs and this will allow them to interoperate with a large number of tools (if/when others implement the OSLC specs) in a loosely-coupled way.

I would strongly urge you to listen to the podcast I mentioned above. It goes into this topic in some detail.

You need to work on your leadin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28538881)

"I work on a technology at IBM called Jazz. Hear that? I.B.M. Big Blue. Old Iron. Yeah, the real deal. What we're trying to do is break outside of the box enabling task-oriented groups to implement product cycle encanchments using synergistic collaborationization. We're building a core technology stack ("Jazz") and we're building a bunch of products on top of it that address different parts of the software lifecycle - e.g. requirements, development, testing, build, move to production. If Jazz is going to succeed as a platform, we have to make it very possible to tie a lot of data together. You see, one of the things that we've learned is that it's not physically possible for human beings to build a single tool that solves every problem - the complexity is too great the interdependencies between components is too brittle. We believe that the only way all of these tools are going to work together is to define simple standard protocols and simple standard formats (open service for lifecycle collaboration - http://open-services.net/ [open-services.net] [open-services.net]) built on top of standard Internet and web protocols (like http) and formats like AtomPub. Our Jazz-based products integrate together using this sort of loosely coupled web style and we're starting to integrate with business partners as well. Another thing I like about working on Jazz is the fact that we develop in the open at Jazz.net. Many of the leaders on our project like Erich Gamma, John Wiegand, and Dave Thomson came from Eclipse, and from that experience they came to realize that software turns out better when you open high-bandwidth direct channels with your users and extenders, so we're doing that with Jazz, even though it's commercial software."

Congratulations on using brackets, quotes and urls in a hypothetical conversation. You should teach me that trick sometime.

Could you try answering the question without the sales pitch and namedropping bullshit please? Is it too hard to give a one or two sentence reply along the lines of Jazz is: _____ as you were asked?

From the above I gleaned:

Jazz is a technology stack (???) and a bunch of protocols on top of a sort of loosely coupled web style interface (???).

Trying to help... (3, Informative)

carlzetie (1589423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28546919)

Disclaimer: I also work for IBM Rational. I've worked in a lot of other places too and I've been around the block a couple of times.

Maybe it's hard to summarize in a couple of sentences because Jazz really is a number of things. I'll try to describe each of them in one to three sentences. And I'll try not to use marketing buzzwords, although I can't promise not to use URLs.

1. Jazz is the belief that professional software development is a team effort, and the part of that effort that tools in the past have supported least well is communication and collaboration between team members. Tools in the past treated communication more like a ceremony than a conversation. That's just wrong.

The question that Erich and his colleagues set themselves was: what can we do to make it easier to work as a team? So the features that you find across Jazz tools include things like team awareness, status tracking, newsfeeds for things like build completion or test pass/fail, and so on.

2. Jazz is also platform or technology stack that provides common services like storage, query, events, process, collaboration, etc. to tools built on top of it. Middleware for tools, if you like. It relies heavily on Eclipse technologies including OSGi. Rational Team Concert is one example of a tool built on the Jazz platform, there are many more.

3. Jazz also is an integration technical architecture that uses RESTful interfaces between tools, whether those tools are on the Jazz platform or standalone. Links between artifacts are simply URIs. It's designed to be, yes, loosely coupled and web-style. What that means in practice is that you don't have brittle connections where upgrading one tool breaks the integration with another. It also means you don't have to consolidate everything into one repository. The open part of that integration is OSLC, which is where we are developing specs for integration, i.e. metadata definitions in XML and JSON plus service interfaces, in plain sight and publishing them under Creative Commons so that anybody can consume them to integrate with our tools -- or, heck, without our tools if they want to. Anybody can also participate in the spec process -- there's no membership fees or purity test, and the only requirement is a willingness to disclaim patent enforcement against anybody who implements a spec.

Does that help?

Re:You need to work on your leadin... (1)

BillHiggins (921577) | about 5 years ago | (#28586173)

Best wishes.

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28534475)

Agreed, unfortunately. I was a big fan of the GoF book "Design Patterns" that Gamma helped write. There is way too much tech-oriented marketing speak on the Jazz pages for me to see through. With things tending toward lightweight processes the last several years, you'd think that stuff like this would eventually go away, but there are still enough big companies to support it I suppose. If I could read through the crap though, maybe I'd think about it differently.

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1)

BillHiggins (921577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534915)

Did you look at http://jazz.net/ [jazz.net] or IBM.com pages? We've tried to eliminate gobbledygook from Jazz.net. If you're seeing it, it's a bug :-)

Re:I can't figure out what Jazz is... (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#28535561)

He's a robot who turns into a Porsche 935. He's voiced by Scatman Crothers.

Cleaning Up Collaboration (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533023)

Jazz seems to rely heavily on developer community and their collaboration--and the influence for Jazz is said to be the World Wide Web.

The Jazz portfolio consists of a common platform and a set of tools that enable all of the members of the extended development team to collaborate more easily.

The biggest problem I have with collaboration tools is the metadata. No one does it right. Someone writes a blog or uploads a document but doesn't tag it. Enterprise search is broken. Management hands us wikis yet no one has the time or patience to maintain them. The protective blanket of "it's agile, baby" shields us from any beat downs. And with every new tool I realize that it's not the tool that improves collaboration, it's the team. Look at Slashdot's tagging system. Does it help me that one hundred stories are tagged with "no" [slashdot.org] ? Collaboration seems to spontaneously work but is often out of your control when it does and doesn't. How does Jazz fix these problems? How does Jazz improve collaboration when it seems to me that tools are such a small part of collaboration? Will a small development team be able to use such a large set of tools?

Re:Cleaning Up Collaboration (1)

carlzetie (1589423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28547067)

Disclaimer: IBMer here.

You don't need to use the whole set of tools. If you're working in a small team and an Agile process, Rational Team Concert may be the only tool you want. If you're working in a more ceremonial organization you might benefit from other tools in the Rational portfolio, or from integrating whatever external tools you might want. The original internal users of Rational Team Concert were/are themselves small, Agile teams.

I know it goes against a lot of people here's expectations of IBM but really, Jazz is an attempt to do something different and better by a bunch of people with a pretty good track record who were given free rein to build the tools that they themselves would choose to use. If you try out the free edition that runs on Derby and Apache and you still hate it/think its too heavyweight after that, then fine, that's an informed opinion. But I really can't say this strong enough: don't prejudge Jazz by your preconceptions or previous experiences. Fair enough?

Re:Cleaning Up Collaboration (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about 5 years ago | (#28563099)

Does it help me that one hundred stories are tagged with "no" [slashdot.org] ?

It should. Those are stories with a questionmark, and since they're tagged "no" the collective wisdom of Slashdot would say that, well, the answer to the question posed by the story is a "no". Saves you the time of checking whether there Are aliens living among us [slashdot.org] , for instance :)

Re:Cleaning Up Collaboration (1)

atraintocry (1183485) | about 5 years ago | (#28569041)

Well obviously they're not going to come on here and out themselves...

Patterns (2, Interesting)

Hop-Frog (28712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533055)

His patterns work doesn't rate a mention?

Re:Patterns (1)

ScuttleMonkey (55) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533101)

I asked for a quick writeup and just kept it to what the communications person chose to include. Feel free to fire away on whatever topics you know him to be knowledgeable on.

Re:Patterns (2, Insightful)

Hop-Frog (28712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533139)

Just thinking if I was to write up a quick bio ... man, I'd start with patterns ... Surprised me that wasn't even in there.

Re:Patterns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533369)

I'm with you 100%

Re:Patterns (2, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533637)

The patterns book significantly predates JUnit and Eclipse, the communications person clearly focused on his work for IBM.

Re:Patterns (3, Funny)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533125)

Design patterns? The open source community doesn't need no stinkin' design patterns. We just code by the seat of our pants into oblivion!

Re:Patterns (1)

Hop-Frog (28712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533251)

Nice.

Re:Patterns (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#28535599)

Design patterns? The open source community doesn't need no stinkin' design patterns. We just code by the seat of our pants into oblivion!

Yessir, a cowboy ain't need but three things in life: his hat, a good pair o' boots, and his Linux machine... Fancy city folk can have their newfangled patterns and such...

My biggest problem with jazz (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533077)

...are the fans.

Usable code for discrete tasks (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533093)

Hi, I work in the storage management world, and noted the unlamented passing of Aperi, which had been put into Eclipse.

My company looked at Aperi, and would have liked to do something with it, but the first line of every file seemed to read

          #install <universe.h>

This doesn't work for us. Like most companies, we've already invested in one or more frameworks and don't want to change just to get the three or four interesting capabilities that we see in some large piece of open-source software. Are there any projects underway to furnish discrete management functionality in bite sized chunks?

Thanks

Lotus Jazz anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533117)

Anyone else remember Lotus Jazz for the 512KB "Fat Macintosh" back in 1985 or so?

Now IBM owns Lotus.

I guess there won't be any trademark suits over this one.

big fan of jazz (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533171)

I'm a big fan of jazz, but I've never heard of this JUnit character, nor the Rationale Suite. Anyone have some links to some mp3s?

Open Sores Software rules!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533183)

Why do Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens and the GNU/Linux OS suck so much?

Dear sir: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533197)

Please give me teh codes!

New Important Design Patterns? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533243)

On your influential book regarding design patterns [wikipedia.org] , you listed 23 design patterns that would become the foundation for the concept of design patterns in computer science. Since then, many more types and subtypes have arisen [wikipedia.org] but a lot of them seem to be derivatives or a combination of others. What new design patterns if any do you wish you had included in your book or that you feel are necessary for competent developers to learn?

Follow up on Design Patterns (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533729)

What is your comment regarding http://perl.plover.com/yak/design/ and the implication that you have misunderstood design patterns? Shouldn't you instead advocate for folks to use languages that are more productive than C++ and Java that do not have these problems?

Or overrated old ones? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28536429)

On a related topic, if you were to write Design Patterns today, would you omit or significantly modify any of the original 23 patterns?

Re:New Important Design Patterns? (1)

rtayek (606579) | about 5 years ago | (#28577823)

i believe that the consensus is that the 23 *design* patterns in the gof (plus or minus a few) are orthogonal and complete.

Wait, IBM bought Lotus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533275)

So by using the name Jazz for this, I guess we're not going to see v. 3 of Jazz for the Mac? Dang.

gangoffour tag (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28533553)

Gang off our what?

Buying in to Rational Products (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533759)

From a very old article I found on Jazz & Eclipse [computer.org] :

According to the NRC's Singer, the chief constraint that Jazz faces is that it works only on the Eclipse platform. Says Singer, "The only people who can adopt it are those who are using Eclipse."
Singer also feels that some processes might not accommodate Jazz's idea of collaboration. "People use all sorts of tools and ways of communication to coordinate their work, to be able to collaborate, to be able to put together big pieces of software," she says. "Some of this has to do with following a particular process. Where Jazz might be constraining is when the model behind it does not jive with these preexisting processes."
Meanwhile, Mike Milinkovich, the Eclipse Foundation's executive director, told eweek.com last March that IBM developers account for as much as 80 percent of Eclipse's development team. He questioned whether that kind of environment is good for Eclipse or Jazz. He also noted that some have charged IBM with killing off the Jazz developer tool competition with Eclipse. Finally, he wondered whether having two open source communities--one for Jazz and one for Eclipse--will ultimately weaken Eclipse.

I'm not sure but I would wager that's as true today as it was in 2007. How do you address those concerns?

I've also noticed--through use of the Rational Suite--that you can't just use one tool in the suite. You need them all. And, you know I understand it's IBM's business model, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way that I was using all these great Maven2 tools to do releases and automagically test and build inside subversion. But when we went to ClearCase, we had to do releases through ClearCase and our test and builds through CruiseControl [sourceforge.net] and I never found any plugins for Maven2 to ClearCase. ClearCase was really too much for such a small team. We had to bring in an administrator part time who had 20 years of ClearCase experience and the team just complained non-stop about moving off subversion. Why is everyone trying to "own" the whole stack? Why can't I recognize one Rational product is great and just use that and integrate it in with the rest of my tools? It seems like if you buy one you soon find yourself buying them all. Great for IBM but not always what we need. Is Jazz the same way?

I mean, it's fine if the answer is that if I want to use Jazz I have to use Eclipse ... or if I want to use Composer I have to use Concert and Manager. But it would then seem that collaboration is only being aimed at a very certain type of developer. This may be a "loaded question" but is IBM hoping Eclipse will become the be-all-end-all integrated development environment? I know Flex Builder and Workshop are already built on top of it, is world domination in sight?

Re:Buying in to Rational Products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28550993)

You are not just bound to using Eclipse for your development tools, you. For the Rational Team Concert product, there are plugins to integrate the collaborative tools for Visual Studio.

https://jazz.net/downloads/rational-team-concert/releases/2.0?p=allDownloads

Re:Buying in to Rational Products (1)

geoffrey.clemm (1220202) | about 5 years ago | (#28553225)

Lot's of good questions here ... I'll try to respond to a few ... Jazz is a server-platform for team tools. It provides a variety of services, including some WebUI services for writing Web clients for your tools. So if anything, a WebUI is the primary interface for the Jazz tools. Some tools, especially SCM tools, live best in an IDE because that's where most developers live these days (usually not just on the Web, because the tools they use expect to find their data in the file system, and put their results back in the file system). So RTC (which contains an SCM tool), needs to live in the developer's IDE. So Eclipse is an important client for RTC (as is Visual Studio, and there is an RTC client that lives in Visual Studio). Other Jazz based products that are not focused on the developer will often only have a WebUI, and not provide an Eclipse UI. So Jazz is only like Eclipse by analogy ... i.e. like Eclipse, the goal of Jazz is that you can "plug-in" any component you want, or you can buy plug-ins from Rational or other companies (Rational is just the "first" company selling Jazz "plug-ins" like RTC). But unlike Eclipse, Jazz is not an open source project, and unlike Eclipse, you do have to pay IBM to buy/use the Jazz platform. But that's no different from other platform providers ... lots of folks sell applications that run on Windows, but you still have to pay Microsoft to use the Windows platform.

On strong typing, and design patterns and testing (1)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 5 years ago | (#28533803)

A number of weak typing language zealots like to point out that Design patterns is simply a way to make strongly typed languages "suck less".
This can be a compelling argument in terms of simplicity and syntax in examples when you take a look at books like "Design Patterns in Ruby" compared with "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software". There's also an argument that strong typing is a form of tight coupling and antithetical to half of the Object Oriented axiom, "loose coupling, strong cohesion". Given the momentum in popularity that unit testing across multiple languages and development methodologies has (rightfully!) enjoyed, is it time to encourage language designers and programmers to move away from strong typing usage and substitute better testing practices?

Re:On strong typing, and design patterns and testi (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534857)

A number of weak typing language zealots like to point out that Design patterns is simply a way to make strongly typed languages "suck less".

That's a common claim from such people, true, but its not entirely true; descriptions design patterns in terms of substantial code structures that must be implemented for each use of the pattern are ways of working around language limitations, the patterns themselves are not. In languages with better metaprogramming support and/or more permissive typing, many common "design patterns" can be implemented in libraries so that they are reusable. They are still design patterns, but they cease to be what you might call "implementation patterns"; substantial code structures that have to be rebuilt for each new use.

Re:On strong typing, and design patterns and testi (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28537055)

I assume you don't mean strong typing versus weak typing but dynamic versus static typing.

Design Patterns have nothing to do with the typing system. Design Patterns are on the level of the software architecture. There is no noticeable difference wether you implement a certain pattern in Java(strong and static typed), Groovy, Ruby or Python (all 3 strong and dynamic typed), only the syntax of the concrete lines of code is different.

Your point about "suck less" makes no sense either, as most design patterns we know today evolved in the SmallTalk world, which is a dynamic typed language just like Python, Ruby etc.

Hint: weak typed languages are languages like C

angel'o'sphere

Questions for Dr. Gamma (1)

Aranwe Haldaloke (789555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534055)

Can you tell us of your ideas for new robot masters? What is your plan to get rid of Mega Man? Are you really Dr. Wily in disguise?

On the Current State of Academia? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534079)

I know a lot of people that are very vocal about what is right and wrong with education today. Especially college institutions: "No one teaches C, everyone teaches four years of Java, no one understands the theory, a CS grad doesn't even know what a model-view-controller pattern is." The list goes on. Since you have your doctorate and have probably spent a lot of time in research and academia, what's wrong with most computer science or engineering programs in general today? What would you like to see more or less of? Are there any subject directions recently taken (EJB, garbage collectors, interpreted languages) you'd like to comment on?

You seem to be non-opposed to Java which, I'll admit, is rare to me for someone with a doctorate. I would like to hear your views since so often all I hear about Java is that it is slow and only good for people that want cheap software developed quick by beginner developers.

Will SWT and Swing ever merge in Eclipse? (4, Interesting)

Fuzuli (135489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534733)

I have to build quite complex tools using GEF and GMF, and there are many cases where I'd like to have the power of Java2D, and reuse some of the great frameworks out there built on Swing.
More and more people are using AWT/SWT bridge, since SWT does not provide an underlying drawing framework as rich as Java2D.
Eclipse has great things like EMF, and the platform is number one choice for tooling, but when it comes to things like Bezier curves etc, Swing is much easier to use. So are we going to see more developer friendly versions of Eclipse where Swing is more available to us?

Re:Will SWT and Swing ever merge in Eclipse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28535999)

A follow-up question -- will SWT and the whole Eclipse workbench ever run in a Web browser? We have built a product based on SWT/Eclipse but our customers complain they cannot run it from a browser and instead have to download 200MB+ worth of plugins before they even start evaluating our product.

Re:Will SWT and Swing ever merge in Eclipse? (1)

luiss (217284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28538435)

Take a look at the Rich Ajax Platform [eclipse.org] Project.

Re:Will SWT and Swing ever merge in Eclipse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28538631)

Jazz is a whole lot better than RAP.

Rational? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28534765)

I work in a small shop that makes some use of Websphere Application Server and the Rational development tools. I basically find the entire structure of the IBM software offerings relating to the above technologies incomprehensible. Products are constantly being renamed, discontunued, bundled, unbundled and rebranded. Names are long, generic, and practically interchangeable, and so are the feature lists.

How do you plan to run a community support site based around this hodge-podge? I would assume the volatile nature of IBM's software marketing makes your task something approaching impossible. How do you expect to build a strong developer community based around products that are in a constant flux? I don't see any way around ending up with a large number of granular, isolated communities that spring up around specific products and thrive for a year or two. In short, how do you plan to unify a developer community without IBM first unifying the software development platform that this community is to be built around?

Thank you.

Re:Rational? (1)

geoffrey.clemm (1220202) | about 5 years ago | (#28553307)

I think you'll find that the communities around the Rational "team tools" (like ClearCase and ClearQuest, and now Rational Team Concert) are somewhat different. In particular, half (or more) of the value around the team tools is their consistency and longevity (so for example, the ClearCase user community has been going strong for a decade or two). So I completely agree with your comments on the importance of consistency and community. That is why when we started the Jazz project to provide a common team software development platform, we also started the www.jazz.net community site, to support that community (based on our experiences with participating in successful open source communities).

Are there any original patterns left? (1)

lemurosity (1547277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534861)

Like movies, it seems like "new" patterns are just rehashes of existing ones with different names or meaningless semantic differences. At some point it seems like it becomes a counterproductive activity that burns energy that could be better applied to other activities. What are your feelings about where the most meaningful contributions to patterns can be achieved?

RTC vs CQ and CC (1)

SunSunich (1588709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28534931)

First of all let me congratulate you on the successful launch of version 2.0 of RTC and 1.0 JF. It is realy great work, thank you and all the Jazz Team. The functionality of Rational Team Concert greatly overlaps with the ClearQuest and ClearCase. Why is it necessary to create a new product? Why not just release it as new versions of old? For customers, it could be easier to adapt. What is the future of CQ|CC, how you see it? Thank you.

Re:RTC vs CQ and CC (1)

geoffrey.clemm (1220202) | about 5 years ago | (#28552629)

As background, I work for IBM/Rational, participated in the design and construction of RTC from its inception, and among other activities, have been leading the teams building the "Connectors" between RTC and ClearCase/ClearQuest. Back in 1995, I joined Atria to work on ClearCase. So why did we created a new product?. Over the years we've observed that for large software projects, what mattered even more than point tool functionality was how well the different tools were integrated. More recently, as companies started focusing on agile development where single individuals perform multiple roles concurrently, the same became true for smaller software projects. So we put increasing amounts of efforts into integrating our tools. But we concluded that without a tool integration platform, there's only so far we could go (and in particular, the integrations were tool version sensitive, requiring upgrading the tools together, which is not something users wanted to do). And even with a tool integration platform which improved the level of integration of all the tools, we also concluded that the only way to get optimal integration is to also build the products specifically for that tool integration platform. In addition, a requirement for ClearCase and ClearQuest has always been that they handle all SCM (software configuration management) and CM (change management) problems that our customers have encountered over the years, work on all hardware and OS platforms, and remain compatible with all previous versions we've released. But that breadth of coverage comes at a cost ... both in performance and in ability to do all the new cool things that we and others have thought of. So a few years ago, we started Team Concert, both to build the platform that we were going to use to improve the integration between all of our tools, as well as to build new instances of those tools that were designed to take optimal advantage of that new platform. And while we were building those new integrated tools, we were also free to focus those new tools on the most common problems and the most common platforms, since we had ClearCase and ClearQuest to back the new tools up with breadth of problem and platform coverage. The "Connectors" then plug ClearCase and ClearQuest into that platform, and into those new tools, so that a customer can use the new tools when appropriate, and use ClearCase and ClearQuest whenever they weren't. And the integration between all these tools were enhanced by the Jazz integration architecture (i.e. it was no longer an either/or ... a customer uses whatever tools best solve their problems). And while all this is going on, we continue to invest heavily in enhancing ClearCase and ClearQuest (we have significantly more people working on ClearCase and ClearQuest than we do on Team Concert). At any rate, that was the idea (:-). For some more perspectives on this question from some other folks, you can also listen to the webcast: http://www.rational-ug.org/webcastDetail?wid=74 [rational-ug.org] .

Re:RTC vs CQ and CC (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | about 5 years ago | (#28576035)

As background, I work for IBM/Rational, participated in the design and construction of RTC from its inception, and among other activities, have been leading the teams building the "Connectors" between RTC and ClearCase/ClearQuest. Back in 1995, I joined Atria to work on ClearCase.

So why did we created a new product?.

Over the years we've observed that for large software projects, what mattered even more than point tool functionality was how well the different tools were integrated. More recently, as companies started focusing on agile development where single individuals perform multiple roles concurrently, the same became true for smaller software projects. So we put increasing amounts of efforts into integrating our tools.

But we concluded that without a tool integration platform, there's only so far we could go (and in particular, the integrations were tool version sensitive, requiring upgrading the tools together, which is not something users wanted to do). And even with a tool integration platform which improved the level of integration of all the tools, we also concluded that the only way to get optimal integration is to also build the products specifically for that tool integration platform.

In addition, a requirement for ClearCase and ClearQuest has always been that they handle all SCM (software configuration management) and CM (change management) problems that our customers have encountered over the years, work on all hardware and OS platforms, and remain compatible with all previous versions we've released. But that breadth of coverage comes at a cost ... both in performance and in ability to do all the new cool things that we and others have thought of.

So a few years ago, we started Team Concert, both to build the platform that we were going to use to improve the integration between all of our tools, as well as to build new instances of those tools that were designed to take optimal advantage of that new platform.

And while we were building those new integrated tools, we were also free to focus those new tools on the most common problems and the most common platforms, since we had ClearCase and ClearQuest to back the new tools up with breadth of problem and platform coverage. The "Connectors" then plug ClearCase and ClearQuest into that platform, and into those new tools, so that a customer can use the new tools when appropriate, and use ClearCase and ClearQuest whenever they weren't.

And the integration between all these tools were enhanced by the Jazz integration architecture (i.e. it was no longer an either/or ... a customer uses whatever tools best solve their problems). And while all this is going on, we continue to invest heavily in enhancing ClearCase and ClearQuest (we have significantly more people working on ClearCase and ClearQuest than we do on Team Concert).

At any rate, that was the idea (:-). For some more perspectives on this question from some other folks, you can also listen to the webcast:
http://www.rational-ug.org/webcastDetail?wid=74 [rational-ug.org] .

Much more readable that way.

How does this help make code work right? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28535507)

It's a nice read on the various things to think about in the design of software. But we still seem huge amounts of production code that is in error or even insecure. These are abstract concepts about design, but the problems in production are real and concrete. There is a failed connection between them. For example, how is it that the computer system for Frontier Airlines has only a place for ONE person to be designated [consumerist.com] to pick up an unaccompanied minor?

Silly Stuff (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28535917)

Would you consider naming your son Ray?

Re:Silly Stuff (2, Insightful)

wcbarksdale (621327) | more than 5 years ago | (#28538451)

The real question is, what happened to Erich Alpha and Erich Beta?

Re:Silly Stuff (1)

carlzetie (1589423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28547161)

Erich Alpha was completely unstable.

Erich Beta was functionally complete, but bugged the hell out of everybody. As of this week, he also shuts down every two hours, which is pretty annoying.

My questions (1)

A.K.A_Magnet (860822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28536463)

(1) Do you think Jazz could gain from a distributed model, like git does for source control management, where the repositories can be forked and kept synchronized upstream/downstream (a bit like a "progressive fork" where fixes can be shared but the project can be forked for various reasons)? I heard there is a git connector in incubation but it seems to me more than just code artifacts should be distributed. After enjoying the many benefits of distributed SCMs, it's hard to go back, and I think at least issue management could gain from the same model.

(2) Do you think creating your own SCM was the good decision, in opposition with using metadata in combination with SVN or git?

(3) Are there any plans to liberate Jazz under the EPL or another Free license, and do you believe Jazz can really gain enough traction as it is? There are plans to integrate Google Wave in the Eclipse Communications Framework by 2010, EGit is coming fast and has a lot of momentum among Eclipse developers, Mylin is getting better with every release, issue trackers are getting a lot better, continuous integration engines such as Hudson work really well... To me it looks like Free Software alternatives are going to beat Jazz at its game (not as well integrated at first), because this is typically software that companies want for free, and Free Software communities want Free Software (I know Jazz is gratis for Open Source projects).

(4) What's your opinion on the new wave of JVM languages such as Scala or Clojure? Did you try playing with them?

(5) Are you planning on participating in the development of E4? Regarding alternative JVM languages, there is a real need to refactor JDT to extract a "JVM-language" development tooling on which the specific Java - the language - tooling is built. The current architecture has been problematic to the development of good environments for alternative JVM languages (Groovy, Scala, JRuby, ...) and the current solution is using Aspects with EquinoxAspects to hack on JDT (my understanding is that there are many problems with this hack). Refactoring JDT is something that would be great for E4 (and truly useful), but JDT seems very much to be IBM's turf and I don't see it coming. Any opinion on this, as the original lead on JDT? :)

What do you make of Patterns now? (3, Interesting)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28536615)

I came into professional software development just as patterns were emerging as the "next big thing".

It seems to me looking back that at best we would have to rate the success of design patterns as mixed. One the one hand they've formed a useful vocabulary for discussing software designs and a useful tool for thinking about software in general. However on the other hand it seems like in a huge number of cases they have inspired large amounts of complexity and over-engineering and get misused more often than not. By and large the software world seems to have moved on.

So, I'm curious what you make of them now, looking back? Do you think design patterns as a concept has been a success or not? Do you yourself still use them in daily work?

Re:What do you make of Patterns now? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28537133)

Your final sentence is a funny question, or an interesting question, so you deserve be modded up.

However: why should one not use Design Patterns anymore. You saw overengineered software? So likely the software suffered from some anti patterns? So you stop using Design Patterns? I can't believe that, this makes no sense. With what and why would you replace a model/view/controller pattern, or why a factory?

Many old school programmers demand youngsters learn C ... with the same demanding voice I want that old school developers learn design patterns ... and that means: practice using them! Your C tricks you did not learn in the first year but you acquired them by using C over years, with patterns it is the same.

angel'o'sphere

Re:What do you make of Patterns now? (3, Interesting)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28537351)

You're right, I probably could have phrased the last question better.

When I say "use design patterns", what I really mean is put them front and center in the design process, using them as building blocks when designing software. This was definitely the vision people had at one point. My experience however has been that they are rarely successful when used that way. I'd say everyone does in fact use design patterns by definition - design patterns are after all just descriptions of common designs, so you'd have to be going out of your way and doing very unusual things to avoid them. But my experience is that in successful designs the patterns tend to emerge *after* you've built the software and become useful as way to discuss it and communicate about it, and possibly to critique it, but not really to build it in the first place. Somehow, conceptualizing designs as made out of pattern building blocks always seems to lead to over-engineering. My theory is that, with software, anything that distracts from the principle of "the simplest thing that could possibly work" ends up being a negative. We are enchanted by the idea of software being like buildings - let's put an arch over there, a staircase here, split level room here ... in architecture that makes buildings beautiful, but in software it just makes it unnecessarily complex.

So - hopefully that clarifies what I mean. I'm curious if this is also his experience, or not.

Re:What do you make of Patterns now? (2, Interesting)

wrook (134116) | more than 5 years ago | (#28540699)

Please re-read the book. I wish I had it here (my copy is about 5000 miles away at the moment), but I think what you just wrote is already there. A design pattern, by definition, is something that is intuitively used by many people, whether they know what it's called or not. IIRC you can't call it a pattern unless there are 3 independent implementations of it. So one of the biggest pluses for design patterns is in being able to recognize them in existing code and thereby understand it more easily.

The next thing to realize about design patterns is that they are supposed to be generative. In other words, the use of one pattern naturally leads to the use of another. In other words, it generates the need for that pattern. One of the best uses of design patterns is in refactoring. Quite often you'll look at the design and say, "OK, we've got a state pattern here. And the way it's shaped, we probably need command pattern.... Hey, where's the command pattern in this code? Oh... OK, so that's what's causing the problems."

I am in complete agreement with you that using design patterns as some sort of list of ingredients in a recipe will almost certainly lead to disaster. And I'm relatively sure that this is stated in the GoF book (first couple of chapters... but I admit it's been a long time since I read it). Unfortunately many people try to skip thinking and don't realize that the random use of patterns won't actually make their code any better.

If you look at the early accomplishments of the people in the GoF you will see that they were well ahead of the curve when it comes to understanding these subtleties. So I'm quite sure these issues were well understood, although perhaps they could have been communicated better.

Eclipse (1)

benow (671946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28539405)

Awesome. The new 3.5.0 release is excellent. Fast, full featured, excellent. If I had a question, it'd be: What are the most important practices used in the Eclipse project which make it such a success?

Thank you (1)

redkazuo (977330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28540493)

You made programming more than typing for the rest of us. That is probably the single most important professional programming contribution there is. Thank you very much for your efforts.

Would you care to share your thoughts on the current developments concerning the structuring of professional programming knowledge?

RIP RUP? (1)

Mybrid (410232) | more than 5 years ago | (#28541501)

Uhhh, does this mean the Unified Process is dead?

I haven't worked with Websphere and Rational products since 2005. Back then the Rational Unified Process with use cases, etc. was suppose to be the next big thing. Rational had some tools called the Rational Unified Process which allowed you to create sequence diagrams, etc.

When you click on the Jazz products link\ it takes you to the projects page where all of them start with "Rational" by name. Is IBM going to Open Source ClearCase now? Most attempts at trying to interchange ClearCase with CVS or Subversion have failed. I'm suspicious that since the projects all start with "Rational" by name that there then might be significant "features" unavailable unless one buys ClearCase?

Sounds like IBM is trying to FUD their own open source product, Eclipse, with the focus on uncertainty and doubt.

Re:RIP RUP? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28542301)

Uhhh, does this mean the Unified Process is dead?

Well it's been brain dead for ever... pulling the plug would be merciful.

Re:RIP RUP? (1)

geoffrey.clemm (1220202) | about 5 years ago | (#28553073)

In my view (I primarily do ClearCase, ClearQuest, and Rational Team Concert, but I have contributed to the SCM section of RUP), the "Unified Process" was more an attempt to provide unified terminology and remove gratuitous differences, than it was to define a "one size fits all" process (which is clearly impossible). The experience of evolving RUP resulted in tools that let you define your own process (using whatever bits of the Unified Process that you thought appropriate). In particular, IBM Rational sells that that tool as the "Rational Method Composer". But that process was mostly (and in many cases, completely) information intended to be read by a human. What Rational Team Concert provides is "executable process guidance" (that instead of just being read by a user, is executed by the tools in response to actions performed by the user, similar to triggers in ClearCase and hooks in ClearQuest). Currently, the RMC team is working closely with the RTC team to unify the human readable process description provided by RMC with the executable process guidance provided by RTC. WRT creating sequence diagrams and such, that is the "Rational Software Modeler", not RUP or RMC (although you can use RMC to create sequence diagrams to model your software processes, so I can see how over the years the two could get confused, especially with the acronym similarity between RMC and RSM :-). WRT open source'ing things, although IBM in general and Rational in particular do contribute people and effort to open source projects (such as Eclipse, Linux, and Apache projects), neither RTC (the product) or Jazz (the platform) will ever be an open source project ... the source code of RTC and Jazz is owned by IBM. What we are doing with RTC and Jazz is using the development techniques of an open source project to develop a commercial product (we call it "Open Commercial Development", to emphasize it is not "Open Source"). WRT dependencies on ClearCase, there are none. You can use ClearCase, RTC, or both (my team happens to be putting a lot of effort into the "or both" scenario, so I care a lot about that, but you don't have to). So believe me, the FUD is not from us (:-). Eclipse is (and always will be) an open source project, that happened to be originally started by IBM (which is still contributing a lot of people and effort to the project, because we continue to believe that kind of tool is best done as an open source project). RTC (and the Jazz platform) are not (and never will be) open source projects.

Re:RIP RUP? (1)

Mybrid (410232) | about 5 years ago | (#28586803)

Thanks! This was extremely helpful.

In my line of work I sometimes get asked these things myself and now I have an answer!

Cheers! mate!

Why Jazz? (3, Interesting)

autophile (640621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28544291)

Could you explain, minus the marketing speak that seems to pervade the IBM site, what is Jazz, what makes it a community-oriented developer's site, why is it different from, say, sourceforge.net, and if Jazz is so community-oriented and yet apparently tied in to Rational, where are the community versions (not trials, not demos, not limited to the point of uselessness functionality) of Rational products?

Re:Why Jazz? (1)

geoffrey.clemm (1220202) | about 5 years ago | (#28552791)

WRT the marketing-speak on the jazz.net web site, well, we turned it over the top couple of layers to the marketing group a year or so ago so we could focus on writing code (:-). But if you want to see the real stuff just drill down a couple of layers into any of the pages, and you'll find that it's still where the development work is going on ... that would include the work items, the plans, the forums, the mailing lists, the wiki, the white papers, the blogs (well, most of the blogs :-). If I were you, I'd skip the twitters (:-). How is it different? It's our full time jobs, but we're encouraging not only all of our customers, but anyone who is interested (including our competitors) to see (and comment on) everything that we are doing ... our plans, or discussions, and even our source code. As for limited functionality, have you tried the free edition of RTC (Express-C)? It has virtually every feature of RTC (except for the integrations with ClearCase and ClearQuest ... and if you're using ClearCase and ClearQuest, you're clearly someone who is willing to pay for your software tools :-). The only thing it limits is how big your team can be to use it. (We really do have to charge for it at some point :-).

Why the Visitor pattern?? (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 5 years ago | (#28581575)

The Visitor pattern isn't OO, and in fact violates OO principles in every way, but I've seen it used for far beyond what I think you guys had in mind when you included it in your book. If you were to write a second version, would you include the Visitor pattern? If so, would you at least consider emphasizing its limited use?

Friends don't let friends use Visitor.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>