Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

19
|
56.4K Views
|
44 Replies
|
100 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:
GROUPS:

Wolfram Workbench Update Request [Solved]

POSTED BY: Frank Martin
44 Replies
Posted 9 years ago

Related: Workbench now compatible with Wolfram Language and Mathematica 10 and 11

http://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/963774

POSTED BY: Emily Suess
Posted 9 years ago

Probably, I am missing something.

When I purchased the Workbench 2.xx license, I just ran the installer then launched Mathematica and everything worked (not as I expected but it worked). In other words, to run Workbench I did not need anything extra (as for example and additional piece of software not included in Workbench, say, Eclipse). What I am saying is that I understood that Eclipse was, somehow, included in Workbench 2.xx.

To me, this is a bit confusing.

Which is the difference now between Workbench 2.xx and the new Workbench (3.xx) ?

POSTED BY: E Martin
POSTED BY: Szabolcs Horvát
Posted 9 years ago

Many thanks.

POSTED BY: E Martin
POSTED BY: Murray Eisenberg

I have the 64-bit version of Eclipse running with the WB plugin under windows.

POSTED BY: Frank Martin
POSTED BY: Rolf Mertig

And it works with the 64-bit version of Eclipse Neon?

I looked at http://support.wolfram.com/kb/27221, which makes no mention of 64-bit vs, 32-bit Eclipse. But the October 2016 answer at http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/18183/how-to-install-the-wolfram-workbench-plugin-into-eclipse-kepler-or-neon says 32-bit Eclipse.

POSTED BY: Murray Eisenberg
POSTED BY: Murray Eisenberg

Yep, that the same plugin!

POSTED BY: Frank Martin

I'm at the WTC. The Wolfram website is not up-to-date regarding Workbench, but all should be cleared up in a week or two. The new Workbench will be available (and supported) as a plug-in to Eclipse, which means that you will need to download Eclipse (and for Macs, the JDK) in order to use it. The link given earlier has the procedure. People have done this at the conference, and it works.

This plug-in will be available to everyone.

Any remaining confusion (e.g., references to Workbench 2 on the Wolfram Website) should be cleared up 'soon'.

This is good news for all Mathematica users.

Posted 9 years ago
POSTED BY: E Martin

Wolfram has up-to-date version of the Eclipse plug-in - please see http://support.wolfram.com/kb/27221 for more details.

POSTED BY: Dick Verkerk

Is this a new official replacement for Wolfram Workbench 2 and 3?

Is it available to all Mathematica users?

Just wondering because I thought there might be something of a more official announcement and not just an installation procedure.

Posted 9 years ago
POSTED BY: David Keith
POSTED BY: Szabolcs Horvát
Posted 9 years ago

I agree completely. Everyone -- including Wolfram -- will be better off if a good development IDE is part of the standard Mathematica product. I hope Wolfram will provide a better description of what is offered on the Quick Answers page. Failing that, I hope that forum participants who are familiar with the mechanics of Eclipse will offer some guidance.

POSTED BY: David Keith
Posted 10 years ago
POSTED BY: Ron Monson

I use Workbench 2.x and I would like to an update of this product. In alternative I would like to see its features - in particular the documentation capability - included in the coming version of Mathematica

Posted 10 years ago

I use the Workbench and I would like to see it supported by WRI. A new post-beta release would also be welcome.

POSTED BY: Francesco S
POSTED BY: Andras Gilicz
POSTED BY: Mark Tuttle

As an afterthought:

What strikes me is that Workbench 2.0 is still advertised as "state of the art in integrated development" and it is still published, that Workbench 2.0 supports Mathematica 6 and higher.

You can spend 120,- Euro for nothing indeed

POSTED BY: Frank Martin

I used Wolfram Workbench extensively to write the documentation for my Mathematica application. An update to Wolfram Workbench would be welcome by me.

POSTED BY: Hiren Patel
POSTED BY: Rolf Mertig

Yes, please!

POSTED BY: Ian Beatty
Posted 10 years ago

Count me in

POSTED BY: Diego Zviovich

During the past few years I've seen a small number of package applications that had "custom" documentation. I suspect that this was usually due to the authors not having access to Wolfram documentation facilities, or maybe not finding them easy to use. This shows that authors are trying to document but not given adequate support by WRI.

It is good practice to document an application such that it follows the same paradigm and merges smoothly with the Wolfram paclet documentation. It's perfectly possible to do this. The Wolfram documentation method is plenty good. It's not fair to ask a user or reader to learn a new, usually poorly designed, Help paradigm that perhaps clashes with paclet documentation.

Mathematica documents as part of documented applications or supported by applications are by far the best method of development and communication of technical subject matter. The ability to easily document is the weak point to promoting this usage. Wolfram Research would be providing a benefit to everybody, especially the scientific community, by providing documentation facilities to every user.

Not sure I would want to add yet another IDE. I went to the website and I am not sure which platforms are supported.

Like David Park, I'd be happy if the documentation functionality were available in Mathematica. Then I could use one tool for complete Wolfram Language development.

POSTED BY: Szabolcs Horvát

I think you probably have to try IntelliJ IDEA itself for development with WL and other languages.

POSTED BY: Anton Antonov

Personally I would probably not use Workbench for package development. The IDEA plugin is great, and I use it regularly.

However, the Workbench did have two special features which I think are important: the documentation tools (!!) and the profiler. There is not reason I see why these have to be tied to the Workbench. It would be great if they were included with Mathematica instead. Especially the documentation tools are essential for proper package development and really should be made available.

If WRI believes that the Workbench doesn't warrant the effort, they could support the IDEA plugin in some way instead, such as:

  • Making essential parts of the Workbench (MUnit, documentation tools, profiler) separate and make them easy to integrate in other editors

  • Endorse the IDEA plugin

  • Contribute to the IDEA plugin project. It is open source. Anyone can contribute. WRI could do this without having to support the project as an official product.

POSTED BY: Szabolcs Horvát

I agree, the IDEA plugin for Mathematica is indeed great and indeed if the Documentation tools are sepperated from Workbench (I think MUnit has been integrated with mathematica 10+) then there is no need for an update on the workbench any more.

In the spirit of short term thinking: I still would like a new version of Workbench as, according to Wolfram, it is only a matter of creating a proper install wizard for public use.

POSTED BY: Frank Martin

For developing large packages, Workbench is a big help, since you can seamlessly modify the package and test it with a notebook.

POSTED BY: Frank Kampas

Frank, does this mean you put your packages, stylesheets and palettes in Workbench? Is this actually seamless or convenient? It must mean that you do all of your development within Workbench and use straight Mathematica only with the deployed result.

What happens if while using the application in regular Mathematica you find you want to update a routine, or stylesheet or palette? This means that you either have to go up to Workbench to make the change, and rebuild all the documentation even if you haven't changed it, or you can make the changes in regular Mathematica but you must remember to copy the changed files up to Workbench. You have two copies of all these items and must take care to keep them in sync.

I DO NOT put any packages, stylesheets or palettes in Workbench. I leave them all in the deployed application. (I do put the init.m file in Workbench 3, but that's only because it doesn't work if one doesn't deploy some non-documentation file - a definite bug as far as I'm concerned.) Workbench will access all of these deployed files. There is only one copy of them. They can be edited in regular Mathematica and all of the development can be done in regular Mathematica. I only go to Workbench when I want to change or add documentation, which is not that often.

To me it seems much simpler. But to each his own.

Frank, does this mean you put your packages, stylesheets and palettes in Workbench?

I do not understand? I create/maintain my packages in Workbench, which is basically a different front-end of WL (please correct me if I am wrong). Stylesheets and palettes are only relevant in the Mathematica front-end as you can style cells (and elements within them) which are absent in Workbench.

It must mean that you do all of your development within Workbench and use straight Mathematica only with the deployed result.

No, from workbench you can 'run' your code, which pushes the code directly to the Mathematica kernel, pretty much the same as using Shift+Enter in Mathematica.

What happens if while using the application in regular Mathematica you find you want to update a routine, or stylesheet or palette?

Stylesheets and palettes are only used in the notebook enviroment from Mathematica. If I want to update a routine, i simply switch to Workbench, update the routine, hit the run button and test the function in mathematica (Or with an unit test directly in Workbench).

This means that you either have to go up to Workbench to make the change, and rebuild all the documentation [...] take care to keep them in sync.

This is thus not necessary, as you can run your code directly from workbench without building it first. I think you have overlooked some of the features of Workbench. I definitely recommend looking into these if you develop packages.

POSTED BY: Frank Martin

I certainly would welcome and encourage WRI to produce a new public version of Workbench.

However, there are two applications of Workbench: 1) Documentation; 2) Everything else such as debugging, integrating C code, multi-person projects etc. It is only the documentation that interests me. Even though I work on moderate size applications and sometimes with a few other people, I don't find a need for these extra features. I find it easy enough to debug just by inserting temporary Print statements in routines. I don't find any need for an auxiliary IDE. Mathematica is a fairly sophisticated IDE itself. I'm sure this aspect of Workbench is important for internal Wolfram work what with all the C code, and there may be a few enterprise level customers who would make good use of it. Most users, doing math and science, don't really need this aspect of Workbench.

Documentation is a different matter. It is a part of preserving your work and making it accessible to others. Documentation is an optional but usual part of an application. An application is the best way to communicate your work to others. Papers in the form of Wolfram notebooks can be supported by applications and may be included within an application. They are orders of magnitude better than current publication practice. It is rather a shame that all the publications of papers on arXiv.org aren't accompanied by Mathematica paper/applications. - instead of none of them.

I don't know if user documentation has to be tied to Workbench. Perhaps a separate documentation facility could be provided. It really should be available to ALL Mathematica users. An earlier form of documentation was available to all in Version 5. Somehow this vision of Mathematica as a development AND communication medium got lost. Everything is there except Documentation. Otherwise writing applications is really easy.

As for communicating with people who don't have Mathematica? Tell them to get Mathematica; it works and it's worth it.

Add my name to the 'list'. I have been after WRI to release a new 'shrink-wrapped' Workbench since the old one broke. If it is a matter of priorities, maybe they will be shifted. I think I remember that someone said that WR used to have three or four people working on Workbench, and it is now down to less than one FTE.

My situation is the same as David's. I was able to get the beta version of Workbench 3, but think there should be a new release.

POSTED BY: Frank Kampas
Posted 10 years ago

I am interested in this. I am currently using the beta Workbench 3, which apparently can be had on request, but a new release would be welcome.

POSTED BY: David Keith
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard