Re: Installer / Android

[ThSITC]

Hello Bill,
please let this group know of your findings....

I'm just learning *a bit* of ECLIPSE, but am still reading the doc's
available,
and have not yet used your plugin, due to other priorities (finishing
pending work).

Anyway, it's so good to have you in this group!

Thanks a lot,
Thomas.
==========================================================
Am 14.10.2011 15:50, schrieb [hidden email]:

> Kermit,
>
> In trying to learn a bit about Android, I watched a video at the Android
> developers site and learned that Eclipse is their preferred environment.  I
> hadn't realized how extensive and sophisticated the Android plugin is -
> clearly Google has invested a lot of effort into it.
>
> Since there are several hundred thousand apps in Android Market, I assume
> that there are a large number of developers with some significant
> percentage of them using Eclipse.  Probably anything to make app
> development easier, including NetRexx, will be useful to them.  I'm
> surprised that none of them are on this list.
>
> Because Android is so complicated, I think it would be easier for an
> Android Eclipse user (or just any Android user) to check this out.  But
> since no one has, I'll download the ADK and try compiling a hello world
> example using NetRexx to see what happens.  I don't know how long it will
> take me to learn enough to do that, and unfortunately my time in the next
> few days is limited.  I'll get to it as soon as I can.
>
> If there is any Android Eclipse user lurking out there, I hope they will
> speak up.  I'd rather spend what time I have working on the plugin rather
> than learning Android.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 10/14/2011 5:16 AM, Kermit Kiser wrote:
>> George -
>>
>> This is going to sound trivial at first: I modified the Ant build process
> provided by Google to insert a NetRexx translate step between the resource
> build step and the Java compile step.
>> In reality that was not so trivial because the first step is to run a
> build process that uses a module that generates the actual build process
> using templates. That is probably because it needs to scan all of the
> project directories for graphics images, sound files, any other resources,
> then compress all of the xml files that define UI components and generate
> an "R" (resource) module that contains name/ID cross-references for
> everything which is then compiled to a Java class that can be imported into
> the Java program compiles along with any library jars provided so the
> program modules can find everything at compile/runtime, after which
> everything is converted from Java byte-code into Dalvik byte-code and
> assembled into a complete package file for the application and signed with
> a programmer created digital certificate key. There are also optional steps
> for stuff like obfuscation modules which I have not used. And all of that's
> an oversimplification!
>> Unfortunately, for reasons that escape me, the build structure is not
> stable and Google sometimes changes it enough with new platform releases
> that it even breaks their own developer tools and they have to patch them
> in a later release. Then I have to modify the NetRexx version to handle the
> new directory structures or whatever they did. It is almost like they want
> to break things for people who are not using their preferred Android
> Eclipse plugin. That is why it is so important to find out if Bill's
> NetRexx Eclipse plugin will work with the Android plugin!
>> I did not have any problems with missing classes needed by NetRexxR.
> Android seems to have a fairly complete Java library implementation.
>> For CLDC can you extract the needed Java classes and add them to the
> NetRexxR.jar file? Or perhaps write your own substitute versions of the
> missing classes?
>> -- Kermit Database: 2090/4549 - Release Date: 10/13/11
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
> http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

--
Thomas Schneider (Founder of www.thsitc.com) Member of the Rexx Languge
Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team
(www.netrexx.org)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[ThSITC]

Hello Kermit,
    please do send me this ZIP, too, for my own tests...

Thanks in advance,
Thomas.

PS: I personally *think* that the ANDROID market will be *exploding*
very fast, so any NetRexx support there will be or might be a market
braker ...
========================================================
Am 15.10.2011 07:16, schrieb Kermit Kiser:

> Bill -
>
> I think there are a few people on this list that are experimenting
> with Android via both Eclipse/Java and jEdit with NetRexx. I doubt
> they are far enough to feel comfortable testing stuff yet.
>
> Let me know if it will help and I will zip up a complete
> Android/NetRexx project and send it to you for testing with Eclipse.
>
> -- Kermit
>
>
> On 10/14/2011 6:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Kermit,
>>
>> In trying to learn a bit about Android, I watched a video at the Android
>> developers site and learned that Eclipse is their preferred
>> environment.  I
>> hadn't realized how extensive and sophisticated the Android plugin is -
>> clearly Google has invested a lot of effort into it.
>>
>> Since there are several hundred thousand apps in Android Market, I
>> assume
>> that there are a large number of developers with some significant
>> percentage of them using Eclipse.  Probably anything to make app
>> development easier, including NetRexx, will be useful to them.  I'm
>> surprised that none of them are on this list.
>>
>> Because Android is so complicated, I think it would be easier for an
>> Android Eclipse user (or just any Android user) to check this out.  But
>> since no one has, I'll download the ADK and try compiling a hello world
>> example using NetRexx to see what happens.  I don't know how long it
>> will
>> take me to learn enough to do that, and unfortunately my time in the
>> next
>> few days is limited.  I'll get to it as soon as I can.
>>
>> If there is any Android Eclipse user lurking out there, I hope they will
>> speak up.  I'd rather spend what time I have working on the plugin
>> rather
>> than learning Android.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2011 5:16 AM, Kermit Kiser wrote:
>>> George -
>>>
>>> This is going to sound trivial at first: I modified the Ant build
>>> process
>> provided by Google to insert a NetRexx translate step between the
>> resource
>> build step and the Java compile step.
>>> In reality that was not so trivial because the first step is to run a
>> build process that uses a module that generates the actual build process
>> using templates. That is probably because it needs to scan all of the
>> project directories for graphics images, sound files, any other
>> resources,
>> then compress all of the xml files that define UI components and
>> generate
>> an "R" (resource) module that contains name/ID cross-references for
>> everything which is then compiled to a Java class that can be
>> imported into
>> the Java program compiles along with any library jars provided so the
>> program modules can find everything at compile/runtime, after which
>> everything is converted from Java byte-code into Dalvik byte-code and
>> assembled into a complete package file for the application and signed
>> with
>> a programmer created digital certificate key. There are also optional
>> steps
>> for stuff like obfuscation modules which I have not used. And all of
>> that's
>> an oversimplification!
>>> Unfortunately, for reasons that escape me, the build structure is not
>> stable and Google sometimes changes it enough with new platform releases
>> that it even breaks their own developer tools and they have to patch
>> them
>> in a later release. Then I have to modify the NetRexx version to
>> handle the
>> new directory structures or whatever they did. It is almost like they
>> want
>> to break things for people who are not using their preferred Android
>> Eclipse plugin. That is why it is so important to find out if Bill's
>> NetRexx Eclipse plugin will work with the Android plugin!
>>> I did not have any problems with missing classes needed by NetRexxR.
>> Android seems to have a fairly complete Java library implementation.
>>> For CLDC can you extract the needed Java classes and add them to the
>> NetRexxR.jar file? Or perhaps write your own substitute versions of the
>> missing classes?
>>> -- Kermit Database: 2090/4549 - Release Date: 10/13/11
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
>> http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

--
Thomas Schneider (Founder of www.thsitc.com) Member of the Rexx Languge
Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team
(www.netrexx.org)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Kermit Kiser]

I have not forgotten App Inventor, although I did not have time to do
more than read it's overviews. I was already working on a similar IDE
for NetRexx but it is nowhere near usable code yet. Let me know if you
have any suggestions based on your experience.

-- KK

On 10/14/2011 10:31 PM, Tom Maynard wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 12:16 AM, Kermit Kiser wrote:
>> experimenting with Android via both Eclipse/Java and jEdit with NetRexx
>
> Hey!  Don't forget Google's AppInventor (soon to be FOSS).  It's ideal
> for the "point and click" developer crowd.  Why, I even took a look at
> it myself.
>
> t++
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Tom Maynard]

On 10/15/2011 2:25 PM, Kermit Kiser wrote:
> App Inventor...Let me know if you have any suggestions based on your
> experience.
>

Actually, I don't have any experience with App Inventor.  I did download
and install it once, but I never fired it up.  I did peruse the
documentation a bit, but then some other new and shiny thing got my
attention and I just never got back to it.

Tom.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[George Hovey-2]

Bill,
I've recently gotten interested in Android development.  As you have (at least at the time of your post) had no contact with Android I'd like to point out a few facts about the OS in hopes of piquing your interest.

• Android words with more than phones (the latest 10" Google Nexus tablet has a higher resolution than the iPad).
  
• I agree totally that software development is a joke without a keyboard, and adding a keyboard just produces a clumsy netbook.  But it has real possibilities for apps, and I am planning quite a 'techie' one for digital design engineers.
  
• it contains a very sophisticated device emulation environment which allows one to simultaneously emulate several devices of different sizes and resolutions.  In principle one doesn't need an android device at all to debug an app.
  
• it has wonderful facilities to aid you in 'monetizing' your app, so that you can concentrate on program development rather than business issues.

Android offers two development environments: command line and an Eclipse plugin called Android Development Tools (ADT).  Since I know neither Android or Eclipse, and because I'm set in my ways, I chose the command line.  However, I soon found that this had a serious drawback.  When I ran into a problem, I had difficulty finding command line users who had also seen it; almost everyone is using ADT.  So I am now trying to come up to speed with Eclipse; unfortunately its documentation seems less than stellar, unlike Android's (but I found a useful set of Android and Eclipse tutorials -- google 'Vogella').

What now remains is to get NetRexx into the mix.  Any thoughts?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mike,

As I said, I don't use Android, and currently I have no plans to go in that
direction.  Developing programs on a phone certainly would be awkward, even
with a tiny keyboard.  (I think that "texting" on a numeric keypad is
barbaric - it wouldn't surprise me if we end up with a generation of
children with early finger and wrist joint problems.)

I certainly would not suggest that the NetRexx translator should run on a
phone in the Android runtime to do programming - that is too keyboard
intensive.  But maybe using NetRexx as a scripting language would work -
i.e as a JavaScript replacement.  Designing a programming facility which
could be effectively used on a phone is an interesting concept.

In fact, I didn't mention Android at all in my initial note - I was just
responding to Chip when he suggested it as another possible installation
environment.  I know almost nothing about Android except that it uses the
Linux kernel, and so I suggested to Chip that the Linux installer should
handle any Android installation.

Converting the NetRexx runtime library to run on Android phones would be
reasonable but based on what Joe said, it may not be easy (or even
possible).  My understanding is that Google has kept some of the Android
source closed, perhaps to prevent that kind of thing.  Maybe Kermit can
clarify this.

I know there is an Android Developers Kit plugin for Eclipse and if I were
going in the Android direction, I'd certainly use that.  There may or may
not be an easy and natural fit between that plugin and the NetRexx plugin.
I'll look at it when time permits, and possibly add function to the NetRexx
plugin to make using NetRexx with Android easier.

As far as installers go, if native Android is where the action is, then
implement an Android installer.

Kicking the dead horse: users want an installation to be trivial - it
should "just work".  They will only do it once (per download).  They don't
want to have to read anything or to follow complicated (or even simple)
directions.  They want "click to install".  Be honest: don't you?  NetRexx
needs to do what ever it takes to make that the user experience, the sooner
the better.

Bill


On 10/12/2011 7:42 AM, Measel, Mike wrote:
> Bill are you *really* going to try to do NetRexx development *on* an
android or any other phone ?  I mean seriously, come on.
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1) Basic version. No installer. Instructions for where the files go.
>
> 2) SDKs. Ready to install into the various IDEs.
>
> 3) Runtime. A single small jar for your phone, tablet, laptop or
mainframe.
>
> 4) Premium. Any of the above packaged with InstallAnywhere --- your
grandmother can click thru it. $9.95
>
> 5) Linux ISO for virtualbox. Ubuntu, jvm, Netrexx SDK, Jedit and various
IDE's (yeah, just go crazy) and it all fits on a usb stick.
>
> Personally I like 1 and 5.
>
> Proceeds from #4 go to support Aruba.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Installer
>
> On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
>> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
> :-/
>> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
> to
>>> install NetRexx".
>> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
> one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.
>>> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
>>> author(s) of the installation tool(s)
>> ... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.
>>> It is the results that count.
>> A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.
>>> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?
>> Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial.  Ugly code is much harder to
> fix/enhance.  And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number
of
> users.
>> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
> functionally equivalent.  Different platforms will demand different
> processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx
Installer.
> Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
> installations are functionally equivalent.  Think of it as a Single
Unified
> NetRexx Installer Design.
>> -Chip-
> Chip,
>
> I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
> might be right :)
>
> I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux
kernel.
> Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
> USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).
>
> I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
>
> do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
>
> and that is appropriate.  Obviously you have installed many packages - can
>
> you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
> action regarding the installer code in any of them?  Chances are that you
> (like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the
directions,
> and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.
>
> As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
> that the implementation quality should be substandard.  What I said was
> that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user.  The primary
>
> criteria is that the installation works.  As for a judgement that code is
> "ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective,
it
> doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
> always comes back to bite you in the butt".  I think that is an arbitrary
> aphorism which can clearly be challenged.  There is nothing wrong with
goal
> directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
> We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.
>
> It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
> ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".
>
> I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
> nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail.  This is a
> case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of
a
> pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.
>
> As you have said, the platforms as significantly different.  I say just
get
> on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem.  Decide which
> platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
> those first.  If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't
start
> with that as an amorphous design goal.  I think that is just an excuse to
> procrastinate.
>
> It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
> installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
> unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
> serious - they don't even have an installer!".
>
> In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
> the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
> and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation.  I
> suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
> that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
> environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.
>
> Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

--
"One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."  --  Leo Tolstoy
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[ThSITC]

Hi George, and all!

As far as I do know, Kermit Kiser, in the US there,  did make a *number of* significant enhancements
to *NetRexx*, as it is, as a language, to support ANDROID based applications.

Rene Vincent Jansen,

shall this *not be* a *good time* to release Kermit's in-soughts on www.NetRexx.org ?

My *personal feeling* still is (and always has been), that *current NetRexxx distro's are
*too far behind* behind the current art of Java. :-(

Full stop from my side!
Thomas.

PS: Don't want to *initiate* neither an unwanted *nor*  unliked discussion, on this topic, anyway!
When doing, again, by my writing: My Apologies, in advance! ;-)

=========================================================================

Am 06.03.2013 20:10, schrieb George Hovey:

Bill,
I've recently gotten interested in Android development.  As you have (at least at the time of your post) had no contact with Android I'd like to point out a few facts about the OS in hopes of piquing your interest.

• Android words with more than phones (the latest 10" Google Nexus tablet has a higher resolution than the iPad).
  
• I agree totally that software development is a joke without a keyboard, and adding a keyboard just produces a clumsy netbook.  But it has real possibilities for apps, and I am planning quite a 'techie' one for digital design engineers.
  
• it contains a very sophisticated device emulation environment which allows one to simultaneously emulate several devices of different sizes and resolutions.  In principle one doesn't need an android device at all to debug an app.
  
• it has wonderful facilities to aid you in 'monetizing' your app, so that you can concentrate on program development rather than business issues.

Android offers two development environments: command line and an Eclipse plugin called Android Development Tools (ADT).  Since I know neither Android or Eclipse, and because I'm set in my ways, I chose the command line.  However, I soon found that this had a serious drawback.  When I ran into a problem, I had difficulty finding command line users who had also seen it; almost everyone is using ADT.  So I am now trying to come up to speed with Eclipse; unfortunately its documentation seems less than stellar, unlike Android's (but I found a useful set of Android and Eclipse tutorials -- google 'Vogella').

What now remains is to get NetRexx into the mix.  Any thoughts?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mike,

As I said, I don't use Android, and currently I have no plans to go in that
direction.  Developing programs on a phone certainly would be awkward, even
with a tiny keyboard.  (I think that "texting" on a numeric keypad is
barbaric - it wouldn't surprise me if we end up with a generation of
children with early finger and wrist joint problems.)

I certainly would not suggest that the NetRexx translator should run on a
phone in the Android runtime to do programming - that is too keyboard
intensive.  But maybe using NetRexx as a scripting language would work -
i.e as a JavaScript replacement.  Designing a programming facility which
could be effectively used on a phone is an interesting concept.

In fact, I didn't mention Android at all in my initial note - I was just
responding to Chip when he suggested it as another possible installation
environment.  I know almost nothing about Android except that it uses the
Linux kernel, and so I suggested to Chip that the Linux installer should
handle any Android installation.

Converting the NetRexx runtime library to run on Android phones would be
reasonable but based on what Joe said, it may not be easy (or even
possible).  My understanding is that Google has kept some of the Android
source closed, perhaps to prevent that kind of thing.  Maybe Kermit can
clarify this.

I know there is an Android Developers Kit plugin for Eclipse and if I were
going in the Android direction, I'd certainly use that.  There may or may
not be an easy and natural fit between that plugin and the NetRexx plugin.
I'll look at it when time permits, and possibly add function to the NetRexx
plugin to make using NetRexx with Android easier.

As far as installers go, if native Android is where the action is, then
implement an Android installer.

Kicking the dead horse: users want an installation to be trivial - it
should "just work".  They will only do it once (per download).  They don't
want to have to read anything or to follow complicated (or even simple)
directions.  They want "click to install".  Be honest: don't you?  NetRexx
needs to do what ever it takes to make that the user experience, the sooner
the better.

Bill


On 10/12/2011 7:42 AM, Measel, Mike wrote:
> Bill are you *really* going to try to do NetRexx development *on* an
android or any other phone ?  I mean seriously, come on.
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1) Basic version. No installer. Instructions for where the files go.
>
> 2) SDKs. Ready to install into the various IDEs.
>
> 3) Runtime. A single small jar for your phone, tablet, laptop or
mainframe.
>
> 4) Premium. Any of the above packaged with InstallAnywhere --- your
grandmother can click thru it. $9.95
>
> 5) Linux ISO for virtualbox. Ubuntu, jvm, Netrexx SDK, Jedit and various
IDE's (yeah, just go crazy) and it all fits on a usb stick.
>
> Personally I like 1 and 5.
>
> Proceeds from #4 go to support Aruba.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Installer
>
> On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
>> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
> :-/
>> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
> to
>>> install NetRexx".
>> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
> one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.
>>> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
>>> author(s) of the installation tool(s)
>> ... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.
>>> It is the results that count.
>> A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.
>>> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?
>> Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial.  Ugly code is much harder to
> fix/enhance.  And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number
of
> users.
>> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
> functionally equivalent.  Different platforms will demand different
> processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx
Installer.
> Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
> installations are functionally equivalent.  Think of it as a Single
Unified
> NetRexx Installer Design.
>> -Chip-
> Chip,
>
> I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
> might be right :)
>
> I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux
kernel.
> Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
> USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).
>
> I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
>
> do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
>
> and that is appropriate.  Obviously you have installed many packages - can
>
> you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
> action regarding the installer code in any of them?  Chances are that you
> (like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the
directions,
> and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.
>
> As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
> that the implementation quality should be substandard.  What I said was
> that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user.  The primary
>
> criteria is that the installation works.  As for a judgement that code is
> "ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective,
it
> doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
> always comes back to bite you in the butt".  I think that is an arbitrary
> aphorism which can clearly be challenged.  There is nothing wrong with
goal
> directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
> We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.
>
> It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
> ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".
>
> I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
> nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail.  This is a
> case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of
a
> pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.
>
> As you have said, the platforms as significantly different.  I say just
get
> on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem.  Decide which
> platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
> those first.  If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't
start
> with that as an amorphous design goal.  I think that is just an excuse to
> procrastinate.
>
> It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
> installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
> unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
> serious - they don't even have an installer!".
>
> In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
> the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
> and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation.  I
> suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
> that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
> environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.
>
> Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

--
"One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."  --  Leo Tolstoy

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

George,

It is my understanding that the next iteration of Android tools will be abandoning the ADT Eclipse plugin approach, but I have not been following that issue.  Perhaps the normal Android development forums, etc will have the current status.

The NetRexx plugin is compatible with the ADT plugin, and both can be installed into the same instance of Eclipse.  After setting up the ADT, installing the NetRexx plugin from the Eclipse Marketplace is just a few clicks.  The plugin includes a copy of the NetRexx translator so it avoids most of the installation issues. 

The user NetRexx code is compiled to Java, and the Java is used by the ADT. 

There are a large number of books on Eclipse along with youtube videos, user forums, etc.  I don't think the problem is that the documentation is inadequate but is that Eclipse is a very large and complicated IDE, and it just takes a lot of time and effort to learn it.

Bill

On 3/6/2013 2:10 PM, George Hovey wrote:

Bill,
I've recently gotten interested in Android development.  As you have (at least at the time of your post) had no contact with Android I'd like to point out a few facts about the OS in hopes of piquing your interest.

• Android words with more than phones (the latest 10" Google Nexus tablet has a higher resolution than the iPad).
  
• I agree totally that software development is a joke without a keyboard, and adding a keyboard just produces a clumsy netbook.  But it has real possibilities for apps, and I am planning quite a 'techie' one for digital design engineers.
  
• it contains a very sophisticated device emulation environment which allows one to simultaneously emulate several devices of different sizes and resolutions.  In principle one doesn't need an android device at all to debug an app.
  
• it has wonderful facilities to aid you in 'monetizing' your app, so that you can concentrate on program development rather than business issues.

Android offers two development environments: command line and an Eclipse plugin called Android Development Tools (ADT).  Since I know neither Android or Eclipse, and because I'm set in my ways, I chose the command line.  However, I soon found that this had a serious drawback.  When I ran into a problem, I had difficulty finding command line users who had also seen it; almost everyone is using ADT.  So I am now trying to come up to speed with Eclipse; unfortunately its documentation seems less than stellar, unlike Android's (but I found a useful set of Android and Eclipse tutorials -- google 'Vogella').

What now remains is to get NetRexx into the mix.  Any thoughts?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mike,

As I said, I don't use Android, and currently I have no plans to go in that
direction.  Developing programs on a phone certainly would be awkward, even
with a tiny keyboard.  (I think that "texting" on a numeric keypad is
barbaric - it wouldn't surprise me if we end up with a generation of
children with early finger and wrist joint problems.)

I certainly would not suggest that the NetRexx translator should run on a
phone in the Android runtime to do programming - that is too keyboard
intensive.  But maybe using NetRexx as a scripting language would work -
i.e as a JavaScript replacement.  Designing a programming facility which
could be effectively used on a phone is an interesting concept.

In fact, I didn't mention Android at all in my initial note - I was just
responding to Chip when he suggested it as another possible installation
environment.  I know almost nothing about Android except that it uses the
Linux kernel, and so I suggested to Chip that the Linux installer should
handle any Android installation.

Converting the NetRexx runtime library to run on Android phones would be
reasonable but based on what Joe said, it may not be easy (or even
possible).  My understanding is that Google has kept some of the Android
source closed, perhaps to prevent that kind of thing.  Maybe Kermit can
clarify this.

I know there is an Android Developers Kit plugin for Eclipse and if I were
going in the Android direction, I'd certainly use that.  There may or may
not be an easy and natural fit between that plugin and the NetRexx plugin.
I'll look at it when time permits, and possibly add function to the NetRexx
plugin to make using NetRexx with Android easier.

As far as installers go, if native Android is where the action is, then
implement an Android installer.

Kicking the dead horse: users want an installation to be trivial - it
should "just work".  They will only do it once (per download).  They don't
want to have to read anything or to follow complicated (or even simple)
directions.  They want "click to install".  Be honest: don't you?  NetRexx
needs to do what ever it takes to make that the user experience, the sooner
the better.

Bill


On 10/12/2011 7:42 AM, Measel, Mike wrote:
> Bill are you *really* going to try to do NetRexx development *on* an
android or any other phone ?  I mean seriously, come on.
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1) Basic version. No installer. Instructions for where the files go.
>
> 2) SDKs. Ready to install into the various IDEs.
>
> 3) Runtime. A single small jar for your phone, tablet, laptop or
mainframe.
>
> 4) Premium. Any of the above packaged with InstallAnywhere --- your
grandmother can click thru it. $9.95
>
> 5) Linux ISO for virtualbox. Ubuntu, jvm, Netrexx SDK, Jedit and various
IDE's (yeah, just go crazy) and it all fits on a usb stick.
>
> Personally I like 1 and 5.
>
> Proceeds from #4 go to support Aruba.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Installer
>
> On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
>> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
> :-/
>> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
> to
>>> install NetRexx".
>> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
> one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.
>>> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
>>> author(s) of the installation tool(s)
>> ... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.
>>> It is the results that count.
>> A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.
>>> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?
>> Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial.  Ugly code is much harder to
> fix/enhance.  And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number
of
> users.
>> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
> functionally equivalent.  Different platforms will demand different
> processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx
Installer.
> Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
> installations are functionally equivalent.  Think of it as a Single
Unified
> NetRexx Installer Design.
>> -Chip-
> Chip,
>
> I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
> might be right :)
>
> I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux
kernel.
> Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
> USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).
>
> I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
>
> do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
>
> and that is appropriate.  Obviously you have installed many packages - can
>
> you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
> action regarding the installer code in any of them?  Chances are that you
> (like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the
directions,
> and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.
>
> As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
> that the implementation quality should be substandard.  What I said was
> that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user.  The primary
>
> criteria is that the installation works.  As for a judgement that code is
> "ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective,
it
> doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
> always comes back to bite you in the butt".  I think that is an arbitrary
> aphorism which can clearly be challenged.  There is nothing wrong with
goal
> directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
> We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.
>
> It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
> ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".
>
> I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
> nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail.  This is a
> case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of
a
> pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.
>
> As you have said, the platforms as significantly different.  I say just
get
> on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem.  Decide which
> platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
> those first.  If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't
start
> with that as an amorphous design goal.  I think that is just an excuse to
> procrastinate.
>
> It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
> installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
> unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
> serious - they don't even have an installer!".
>
> In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
> the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
> and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation.  I
> suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
> that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
> environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.
>
> Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

--
"One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."  --  Leo Tolstoy

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6102 - Release Date: 02/13/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/