I can understand taking on a hobby project of a game or a simple SQL editor, but an entire friggin' IDE?!
I don't think you quite appreciate the level of effort that goes into something like that, and I can promise that there are several other free IDE's out there that have a plethora of features.
"I would like to develop an ERP system using Java, what button do I press to create my java project into an .exe"
"I would like to make Outlook. What is the difference between an object and a primitive?"
"Me and my colleague are trying to make our own version of Halo. Where should I start? Hellllllp plzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!! Itz UGRENT!!!11one"
My head hurts... @_@
> > i know java basics
>
> That's not nearly sufficient experience to undertake
> the development of an IDE, in my opinion.
>
Depends. It's enough for the architect, testers, and project managers who don't have to code the stuff.
They only have to know basics of OO design and be able to read a stacktrace.
> > That's not nearly sufficient experience to undertake
> > the development of an IDE, in my opinion.
> >
> Depends. It's enough for the architect, testers, and
> project managers who don't have to code the stuff.
> They only have to know basics of OO design and be
> able to read a stacktrace.
The way I see it, the "architect" would design the IDE/environment/architecture. The "testers" would test the IDE. The PMs would manage the project. None of those parties would be responsible for developing the IDE, which is the role mentioned in/by the OP, and for which I would recommend more than a mere "basic"* knowledge of Java.
~
* A term wide open for subjective interpretation.
> The way I see it, the "architect" would design the
> IDE/environment/architecture. The "testers" would
> test the IDE. The PMs would manage the project. None
> of those parties would be responsible for
> developing the IDE, which is the role
> mentioned in/by the OP, and for which I would
> recommend more than a mere "basic"* knowledge of
> Java.
One could argue that since requirements, architecture, coding, managing, testing, etc. are all part of the SDLC, that all of that stuff comprises "developing" the software.
Of course, I think it's highly like that the OP meant, "I want to sit down and start writing code and end up with an IDE," rather than, "I'm going to be an architect/manager/tester on an IDE project."
> One could argue that since requirements,
> architecture, coding, managing, testing, etc. are all
> part of the SDLC, that all of that stuff comprises
> "developing" the software.
One certainly could argue that. But I'm responding to the OP's question: "From which point should i start writing the code ['developing' was the term I used for this - yawmark]?", to which I still feel that a "basic" understanding of Java is insufficient to produce an IDE of reasonable quality. My feeling doesn't change if "developing" is construed to mean "all of the above", because coding is still an integral part of the process.
> Of course, I think it's highly like that the OP
> meant, "I want to sit down and start writing code and
> end up with an IDE," rather than, "I'm going to be an
> architect/manager/tester on an IDE project."
That's the impression I got.
~
On any complicated undertaking like that, actual coding should comprise only 1/6th of the development effort.
Software is indeed one of the most complex human artifacts in known history.
It may seem like overkill, but architects, PM's, and even QA are just as necessary to good software as keen developers.
If you do feel that you need something specific for your IDE needs, you can always develop a plug-in for Eclipse?