Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (79)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (477)
Games in Android Showcase (107)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (536)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
  Will you betray, Eclipse users?  (Read 2430 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline ReBirth
« Posted 2013-05-18 04:35:21 »

So we know that Google drops ADT bundle for Android Studio on previous I/O event.

I haven't tried it yet, the package is quite big. Is there anybody here with long experience on Eclipse who have tried it? I want to know the opinions.

Offline Cero
« Reply #1 - Posted 2013-05-18 11:54:06 »

So we know that Google drops ADT bundle for Android Studio on previous I/O event.

I haven't tried it yet, the package is quite big. Is there anybody here with long experience on Eclipse who have tried it? I want to know the opinions.

When libgdx works perfectly, only then will I even consider looking at it.
And I'm sure that all the cool extra features they showed wull never work with libgdx anyway, because those are customed designed for android sdk stuff

Offline ReBirth
« Reply #2 - Posted 2013-05-18 13:47:53 »

That's what in my mind too. I only use Eclipse for nothing but libgdx game now.

But as long Google gives separate downloads of Android SDK I think libgdx users are still okay.

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Danny02
« Reply #3 - Posted 2013-05-18 18:43:16 »

I have no idea what you are talking about, please enlighten me Smiley
Offline steveyO
« Reply #4 - Posted 2013-05-18 19:08:56 »

Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about, please enlighten me

http://developer.android.com/sdk/installing/studio.html

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bullsquared.alggame Annoying Little Gits (Android)
www.bullsquared.com   Play java (applet) games! www.chessclockpro.com Free Online Chess Clock
Offline princec

JGO Kernel


Medals: 343
Projects: 3
Exp: 16 years


Eh? Who? What? ... Me?


« Reply #5 - Posted 2013-05-19 00:10:32 »

I ain't migratin' from Eclipse. They can bite my shiny metal ass.

Cas Smiley

Offline opiop65

JGO Kernel


Medals: 153
Projects: 7
Exp: 3 years


JumpButton Studios


« Reply #6 - Posted 2013-05-19 00:35:59 »

I have yet to find an IDE that performs, or looks as nice, as Eclipse. It just has so many useful features and is well developed. So, no.

Online kappa
« League of Dukes »

JGO Kernel


Medals: 74
Projects: 15


★★★★★


« Reply #7 - Posted 2013-05-19 01:29:46 »

So we know that Google drops ADT bundle for Android Studio on previous I/O event.
Android Studio is built on JetBrains IDEA which is a pretty good alternative to Eclipse these days.
Offline Jimmt
« League of Dukes »

JGO Kernel


Medals: 128
Projects: 4
Exp: 3 years



« Reply #8 - Posted 2013-05-19 01:56:11 »

I don't even use the android capabilities of libgdx, I just develop for desktop, so sticking with eclipse Tongue
Online KevinWorkman

JGO Wizard


Medals: 52
Projects: 11
Exp: 12 years


klaatu barada nikto


« Reply #9 - Posted 2013-05-20 18:10:39 »

As others have said, one of the best things about using libGDX and eclipse is the ability to develop for desktop/web/Android simultaneously. Android Studio might make developing for Android sexier, but that sorta misses the point.

That being said, I might check it out for non-game, Android-only apps in the future. But I'll still keep eclipse for desktop and EE development, which is the bulk of my work.

Static Void Games - Play indie games, learn game programming, upload your own games!
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline ReBirth
« Reply #10 - Posted 2013-05-21 05:00:50 »

You have point here, I didn't think about the web port before.

Offline sproingie

JGO Kernel


Medals: 202



« Reply #11 - Posted 2013-05-21 08:55:17 »

As others have said, one of the best things about using libGDX and eclipse is the ability to develop for desktop/web/Android simultaneously. Android Studio might make developing for Android sexier, but that sorta misses the point.

I hardly see how it misses the point, unless you think the point of Android Studio is to create projects for anything but for Android.  And LibGDX not only isn't tied to any one IDE, it doesn't even leverage any particular one other than for a project creation wizard that's really not any more useful than the maven archetype that's independent of any IDE.
Offline gimbal

JGO Knight


Medals: 25



« Reply #12 - Posted 2013-05-21 09:14:42 »

I ain't migratin' from Eclipse. They can bite my shiny metal ass.

Cas Smiley

Yeah, screw that!

Besides Eclipse 4.2.2 is actually quite decent (once you set the look & feel to classic). No more performance problems for Gimby, UI updates smoothly, plugins just work - love it.
Online KevinWorkman

JGO Wizard


Medals: 52
Projects: 11
Exp: 12 years


klaatu barada nikto


« Reply #13 - Posted 2013-05-21 13:26:40 »

I hardly see how it misses the point, unless you think the point of Android Studio is to create projects for anything but for Android.  And LibGDX not only isn't tied to any one IDE, it doesn't even leverage any particular one other than for a project creation wizard that's really not any more useful than the maven archetype that's independent of any IDE.

I was going off this article by Mario Zechner: https://code.google.com/p/libgdx/wiki/AndroidStudio

My only point is that I primarily use libGDX, so Android Studio doesn't buy me much, and in fact I lose out on the ability to deploy to the web and as an application in addition to Android. But I might use Android Studio for Android-only projects. Not sure what your problem with those statements is.

Static Void Games - Play indie games, learn game programming, upload your own games!
Offline Cero
« Reply #14 - Posted 2013-05-21 16:27:51 »

I hardly see how it misses the point, unless you think the point of Android Studio is to create projects for anything but for Android.  And LibGDX not only isn't tied to any one IDE, it doesn't even leverage any particular one other than for a project creation wizard that's really not any more useful than the maven archetype that's independent of any IDE.

I was going off this article by Mario Zechner: https://code.google.com/p/libgdx/wiki/AndroidStudio

Yea let me quote myself, but this comment is targeted at libgdx users only:
Quote
Here is a question: Why would you guys want to use Android Studio ? IntelliJ I could understand, but all the features they showed, like previewing images, layouts/scales... those won't work with libgdx, because they depends on the android sdk api directly.

You are not going to hover over a pixmap variable for example and see it.

Since Android Studio offers nothing for libgdx that IntelliJ doesn't - whats the point ? - its just hype you hipsters :D

Offline deepthought
« Reply #15 - Posted 2013-05-21 16:53:58 »

nah. looks like a one trick pony. I use eclipse for normal java and JSP too.

jocks rule the highschools. GEEKS RULE THE WORLD MWAHAHAHA!!
captain failure test game
Offline gene9

Senior Member


Medals: 9



« Reply #16 - Posted 2013-05-21 17:36:31 »

So we know that Google drops ADT bundle for Android Studio on previous I/O event.

I haven't tried it yet, the package is quite big. Is there anybody here with long experience on Eclipse who have tried it? I want to know the opinions.

- IMO, IntelliJ is much better than Eclipse for regular Java development. I prefer Eclipse for Scala work due to the official typesafe IDE support.

- I believe that Android Studio is mostly just regular IntelliJ that is preconfigured for Android only development. You can opt to use full IntelliJ with Android plugins or just a preconfigured Android-only IDE, and you can switch back and forth. Scala on Eclipse works the same way: you can download a preconfigured IDE with a custom icon, or just get regular Eclipse and install the plugins yourself. I change back and forth between setups and I appreciate the choice, but the difference isn't really that significant.

- Gradle is much better than Maven and Ant. I've used all three quite a bit. The big advances of Gradle over Maven is that it has a much leaner and more concise syntax than the heavy XML of Maven, many standardized tasks are easier to do with Gradle, and it allows much simpler customization when you actually need something customized. The serious competition to Gradle is SBT. The downside to SBT is that it has a very steep learning curve.

I'm very happy to see Android adopt IntelliJ and Gradle. Those are two big moves in the right direction.
Offline sproingie

JGO Kernel


Medals: 202



« Reply #17 - Posted 2013-05-21 18:05:06 »

My only point is that I primarily use libGDX, so Android Studio doesn't buy me much, and in fact I lose out on the ability to deploy to the web and as an application in addition to Android. But I might use Android Studio for Android-only projects. Not sure what your problem with those statements is.

Got it, I thought the implication was that Google was missing the point with Android Studio, which would be a pretty odd thing to suggest.  Obviously if your goal is cross-platform dev, you don't start with a platform-specific IDE configuration.

- Gradle is much better than Maven and Ant. I've used all three quite a bit. The big advances of Gradle over Maven is that it has a much leaner and more concise syntax than the heavy XML of Maven, many standardized tasks are easier to do with Gradle, and it allows much simpler customization when you actually need something customized. The serious competition to Gradle is SBT. The downside to SBT is that it has a very steep learning curve.

Maven POMs are XML for a reason, and that's to keep them declarative and able to be parsed and manipulated by any XML tool.  Hard to do that with arbitrary program logic.  A declarative config has other benefits too like compositionality, so you can cut and paste POM snippets more or less at will without worrying about them being tangled with each other.

Really though, it never turned out so neat: Maven POMs never have a valid schema, because plugins can use whatever tags they want, often making it a procedural recipe not all that different than an ant build.  The internals are byzantine, making plugins annoyingly tricky to write.  Gradle and its contemporaries like Buildr keep the good bits like dependency management and build lifecycle, then admits that sometimes you just need to write code on the spot.

SBT does indeed start off simple -- the simplest SBT build definition is "nothing at all".  Just drop source files into src/main/java|scala, tests into src/test/java|scala, jars into lib.  "sbt run" and presto.  I do it for whipping up quick one-off java tests (with scala I just use the repl or batch mode).  Unfortunately it puts the lie to "simple" really quickly, and a lot of it is simply due to ridiculous overuse of symbolic operators.  The internals are even nastier, and while writing simple plugins is really easy (just drop scala files in project/plugins), writing robust plugins that will work in the next version of the still pre-1.x world of SBT is still anyone's guess.  People are getting tired of it, and after ripping out SBT's nice incremental compiler into a maven plugin, many scala devs have switched back to maven.  Not me yet, but I can see the appeal.
Offline gene9

Senior Member


Medals: 9



« Reply #18 - Posted 2013-05-21 21:27:26 »

Maven POMs are XML for a reason, and that's to keep them declarative and able to be parsed and manipulated by any XML tool.  Hard to do that with arbitrary program logic.  A declarative config has other benefits too like compositionality, so you can cut and paste POM snippets more or less at will without worrying about them being tangled with each other.

I completely agree that declarative build definitions are generally better, simpler, more maintainable than imperative scripts of build commands.

However, XML != declarative. There are simpler declarative syntaxes. For example, JSON is simpler/lighter/easier than XML. Secondly, most Ant scripts are basically imperative build commands in XML.

Also, for most normal projects, Gradle is used in a completely declarative fashion without any custom imperative logic. To build a simple Java library you have a one line build.gradle file with just "apply plugin: 'java'"

Adding dependencies, building web apps, having multi-project builds with inter-project dependencies all work without writing custom imperative logic.

I like SBT, but I have had lots of problems getting really basic stuff to work. For example, I couldn't get it to build a runnable command line .jar with an auto-generated classpath manifest entry to reference dependencies. That seems like a super common use case.

Offline sproingie

JGO Kernel


Medals: 202



« Reply #19 - Posted 2013-05-21 22:57:34 »

I'm aware XML doesn't automatically equal declarative, but "imperative language" rarely does unless you design your library in said language to be declarative.  SBT does this by using functional idioms, Gradle aims for high-level tasks and "convention over configuration", same as maven, and it's doing pretty well at it.  I'm excited to see Gradle get more traction.

As for JSON ... nest some JSON 8 levels deep.  Now remove a brace.  Which level wasn't closed?  A solution of "reformat it in your editor and look at the indentation" is not very satisfying.  Now try comments in JSON.  XML is bad enough for people to hand-edit, JSON is far far worse.  And don't even get me started on the freakish hodgepodge that is YAML.

Offline gimbal

JGO Knight


Medals: 25



« Reply #20 - Posted 2013-05-22 09:57:09 »

Ah a nice thread derailment!

I will (again) say one thing about Maven poms: I don't write them, I copy/paste them. All my poms are nearly identical with tiny variations here and there (generally which dependencies are included and on what scope). I don't see how beyond your first attempts at using Maven you spend much time on setting stuff up, its usually a matter of 5 minutes for me and with those 5 minutes I also setup a proper Eclipse workspace with 90% of the build settings correctly in place. Its just too bad that the m2eclipse plugin sets some wonky defaults :/

There were some really excellent pom templates here on the site somewhere.
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #21 - Posted 2013-06-09 01:03:14 »

nah. looks like a one trick pony. I use eclipse for normal java and JSP too.

Am  i the only netbeans fan boy here?

I hate eclipse interface.Tried to change it.Still hate it.
Offline Jimmt
« League of Dukes »

JGO Kernel


Medals: 128
Projects: 4
Exp: 3 years



« Reply #22 - Posted 2013-06-09 01:14:32 »

Used to use netbeans, switched to eclipse for libgdx. Both work fine for me, both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Offline Oskuro

JGO Knight


Medals: 39
Exp: 6 years


Coding in Style


« Reply #23 - Posted 2013-06-09 17:33:14 »

As long as there wasn't a massive practical advantage to switching, I'd keep using Eclipse if only to avoid having yet another egg in the Google basket, so to speak.

Offline gene9

Senior Member


Medals: 9



« Reply #24 - Posted 2013-06-10 03:28:57 »

Am  i the only netbeans fan boy here?

Netbeans used to be my favorite. The main feature that pushed me to IntelliJ is Maven/Gradle/SBT support. All my projects have dependencies and using one of those IDE-neutral build systems is a must.

IntelliJ handles complex mega Maven projects I work on without problems. NetBeans has Maven support, but it hasn't worked as well for me. I didn't spend the time to really identify specifically what breaks it.

Gradle natively supports generating project data for IntelliJ and Eclipse but not NetBeans. IntelliJ also has support to natively read Gradle projects, but it is limited to very simple projects and even doing something simple like using a variable for a dependency version, will break it.
Offline sproingie

JGO Kernel


Medals: 202



« Reply #25 - Posted 2013-06-10 04:32:10 »

I like netbeans in that it's stable and consistent, and for JavaEE stuff was really nice back in the day, while Eclipse WTP was was really more like "Eclipse WTF".  Since I stopped doing serious JavaEE work, it's all a wash.  IDEA is more like what I wished netbeans would become, so since I decided to spend the cash on IDEA Ultimate, I haven't had any reason to go anywhere else (especially since it also comes with a very nice Python IDE that I also use now and then)
Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 
You cannot reply to this message, because it is very, very old.

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

Riven (20 views)
2014-07-29 18:09:19

Riven (13 views)
2014-07-29 18:08:52

Dwinin (12 views)
2014-07-29 10:59:34

E.R. Fleming (31 views)
2014-07-29 03:07:13

E.R. Fleming (12 views)
2014-07-29 03:06:25

pw (42 views)
2014-07-24 01:59:36

Riven (42 views)
2014-07-23 21:16:32

Riven (28 views)
2014-07-23 21:07:15

Riven (29 views)
2014-07-23 20:56:16

ctomni231 (60 views)
2014-07-18 06:55:21
HotSpot Options
by dleskov
2014-07-08 03:59:08

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:58:24

Java and Game Development Tutorials
by SwordsMiner
2014-06-14 00:47:22

How do I start Java Game Development?
by ra4king
2014-05-17 11:13:37

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-15 09:59:54

HotSpot Options
by Roquen
2014-05-06 15:03:10

Escape Analysis
by Roquen
2014-04-29 22:16:43

Experimental Toys
by Roquen
2014-04-28 13:24:22
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!