The discussion started in my JUG mailing list, where some members started celebrating the availability of YouTube for Mobile Devices, including remarkable advances of the nowadays gadgets, like the supposedly revolutionary features of IPhone and a lot of other technologies.

The aftermath of the flame produced some insights I would like to share with you, but not before a context quiz:

1. When the keyboard was invented?
2. When the mouse was invented?
3. How frequently you run applications in your cell phone? If not much, why?
4. How many pages you can type in a small device before to hit it in the wall?
5. How many hours - compared to your TV or your computer - you spend using your mobile devices? If not much, why?
6. Which is more expensive in your working place: your computer or your chair?
7. When was the last time you updated or replaced a software?
8. When was the last time you updated or replaced a hardware?
9. Pervasive computing means you to carry everything in your pocket? If not, why you still carrying it?

So, if you start looking around and thinking of what your are using, perhaps you share my perception about the gap between hardware and software. Few more thoughts and you realize the different velocity some technologies are adopted comparing to others, and the obvious commercial side-effects.

One of the key points of our discussion was about powerful tools of mobile devices and the real adoption of such features. No doubt modern cell phones can seduce you with those colored keys, multimedia features and fancy design... but think twice, how frequently you actually use it for something you really need?

The hardware hurts you

A short survey gave us the impression about the most popular features of mobile devices: SMS, GPS and - of course - the phone. We could not identify the adoption of anything much beyond those basic functionalities. Despite all arguments used to justify why the revolutionary features are not being adopted in large scale by end user, I have a strong feeling about the main reason: the hardware is just boring. The hardware hurts you, it destroys your body and your patience, and doesn't matter your expectations about the next cell phone xyz99, it will come with a newer version of the same too small buttons, tiring screen and probably it will be just a replacement of your current walkman. Keyboards? Come on, when was the last time you invest real money in a keyboard? Cheapest seems to be the most successfully brand in the keyboards market. Mouse? Do you really like it? And what about the furniture? Do you really believe the designer/architect who designed your chair spends 12 hours coding every day? eheh, I guess not, the artistic designer is probably more busy thinking about colors and other very important details. Important for sale, I guess :)

Innovation == renovation?

Thinking about the last 30 years (sorry, more than that I should be born again), I can remember real revolutions in movies, image, sound, software. From computer technology, hardware evolved a lot, including astronomical amount of memory we use nowadays and the allucinogenous CPU velocity. But about design, it is a bit hard to defend. While we wait for the Quantum Physics to offer us another computer model, we seem to be locked in old paradigms. I would like not to go so far in science because it is just a blog, but returning to the subject of our mundane gadgets I guess we are waiting too long for better devices, aren't we?

I must confess the discussion was quite interesting and I pretty sure about its controversial side-effects, but instead of bothering you more about my insights, I prefer to leave these ideas open for discussion. Perhaps you can show me other perspective, something to convince me to give a second chance to try the cell phone.

A wish for my next cell phone

I want my cell phone to read my email messages for me, and I want to have a chance to speak the responses or new messages while the phone converts the sound in text messages.

It seems better than another five different ways to manipulate the renewed versions of the same icons through the same buttons :)

And what about configuration files?

The configuration files of both platforms are committed under version control and I noticed they are ignored by the other platform. Eclipse shows an alert in the problems list, and the internal file used by NetBeans for automatic updating of ANT tasks is also marked as problem, but it has no impact on the development environment and the project normally compiles, runs and executes tests in both IDEs.

What is the big deal on using two IDEs in a same project?

In commercial projects, probably the best strategy is to bet in a unique platform and find a way to extract the best that IDE can give you, eventually including some platform specific tricks in your configuration to enhance your productivity. But technology is not static and sometimes it is nice to keep an open mind about what is going on in the open source community. I will not promote here another tiring comparison of IDE flame, we have enough of that in every Java mailing list, but I'd rather to post some positive thoughts from my personal experience:

NetBeans offers automatic updating of ANT tasks if you change artifacts and/or structure of your project. For example, if you include a new folder, NetBeans add its reference in your ANT tasks definition. The Sun IDE also offers an impressive i18n support with features to refactor old projects in order to verify missed constants.

On the other side, Eclipse is still the most comfortable Java editor available, fast and reliable.

Both IDEs offer a very good Subversion support and the most common development features without great differences - despite personal opinions, of course ;)

That's it for now, I am very happy with the recent advances of NetBeans IDE and I am for a long time fan of Eclipse, so what I suggest you to do is to try both IDEs and find out what best fits your project requirements. Afterwards, the best comparison available continues to be your own experience.