3 ms·

> Without them, there would be no Java, and thus no Eclipse, and thus no incentive to advance the IDEs to the point they are today. I don't buy this argument.

> Without them, there would be no Java, and thus no Eclipse, and thus no incentive to advance the IDEs to the point they are today. I don't buy this argument. IDEs would just advance as they're tools written buy the people who use them - there's an inherent drive to increase their usefulness and automate the mundane and repetitive. Also for what It's worth I think before MS really got their shit together in the IDE space it was Borland that was at the forefront.

southerndrift 7y ago
Of cource, IDEs advance. But at which pace? The bottleneck was the language. When MS got their shit together they just caught up with Java. Maybe MS has done the most, made the biggest investments. But splitting the ecosystem of managed languages into Java and C# hasn't made life easier for developers nor users.