You can spend 120,- Euro for nothing indeed
2 Likes
Last time I knew, the workbench supported “profiling” - the execution trace histogram.
I’d like to be able to use this again, is installing and using the workbench was easy.
– Mark
I also would like to see a new version of Workbench. Moreover, I agree with Rolf Mertig that for developing large packages the FrontEnd is not an option. Working with large files like this one is just too painful in the FrontEnd (especially if the file would be a .nb), while in WWB everything works fast and smooth.
I think that WRI should either offer a proper support for the WWB or (if they plan to drop WWB) actively support the development of the IntelliJ plugin and make it possible to create documentation without WWB (as Szabolcs Horvat suggested). You simply cannot do any serious development using Wolfram language without a proper IDE with unit tests, profiler and a built-in VCS support
For the record, when I visited ACAT 2016 conference in Chile earlier this year I also asked one of the WRI representatives about the Workbench and got a similar reply as the OP. So let us show to people at WRI that we do care about the Workbench and would like to have clarity about its future.
3 Likes
I would welcome an updated Workbench as well.
2 Likes
I use the Workbench and I would like to see it supported by WRI. A new post-beta release would also be welcome.
2 Likes
I also think Mathematica/WL needs and deserves more attention and tool support for larger projects.
I’m still trying to get my head around how WolframAlpha was built using the IMO rather primitive Workbench Piggybacking on Eclipse…
I don’t think it is unfeasible to start an IDE from scratch designed for Mathematica.
Starting from the already available notebook (or package file) editor might be doable.
As mentioned, there are just a few essential things missing from Mathematica right now that “serious programmers” expect, including:
- no more hangs/crashes of the front end
- easy-to-use debugger
- version manageable plain-text files
- search (the current find and replace dialog feels very out-of-date)
- refactoring
- support for multiple files
- not having to manually re-evaluate definitions when things change
Mathematica is AFAIK in a unique position offering such wast symbolic computation power/knowledge and data access.
Being able to instantly visualize some output is something other languages are only starting to get (e.g. Apple’s Swift, check out “WWDC14 Apple Swift Demo”) which Mathematica has had from the start.
Please keep WL alive and help it spread and be adopted.
2 Likes
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
I’d like to reiterate other posters’ comments about the criticality of an IDE for WL to make the transition from “small code” to “big code” - at least more regularly outside the WRISphere. My history is that while WW used to be a large part of my workflow, nowadays I would say that 95% of my development work takes place in the front-end. That 5% though, pareto-like, is still worth more than this percentage might indicate: it provides an “orienting home” for my project; it is used to generate documentation, v.occasionally for stubborn bugs and rudimentary refactoring; to push and package deployments (although I would also say that I’ve never found WW especially natural to use).
The advantages of certain front-end features, in the end, I found too useful and there is one game-changer that I think now makes it feasible to produce large projects in the WL - the advent of Associations (for implementing a version of object-orientation, structs etc). To be sure, to harness this in the front-end, I’ve probably spent ~2 months in total (spread out over several years) creating a native front-end IDE (git integration, “Front-end staging area”, notebook manipulation, stylesheets, modifying Shift-enter, granular organization, code refactoring, multiple screens etc) but to me what this indicates is that something far more powerful could be industrially created (in fact I no longer add to this IDE having got it to a functioning level since I suspect something is already in the works - something that could perhaps be galvanized with sufficient community sentiment?).
Hence (while never saying never) I can’t imagine foregoing these advantages or transiting the code-base already canned away from the front-end, but having said this I would still like to have the back-up of a “traditional IDE” for when other languages are required (or the other 5% of the time and/or when certain features are yet to make their way into a “native” IDE) while also noting that others might have a greater need for such language integration.
Therefore, I don’t think this is an either/or scenario but that actually, a two-pronged approach/strategy is essential for bringing people on-board in the creation of WL “big code”; Something along the lines of:
- A state of the art, front-end IDE (focused on those who predominantly develop in Mathematica - documentation, git version control, unit tests, refactoring just to start with)
- A “traditional IDE” that is used in-house at WRI but which is now also coupled to each Mathematica release (for those who need connections with other languages or prefer this environment)
(I don’t know enough about WRI’s in-house requirements or IntelliJ IDEA’s innards to judge the feasibility of the following proposition but … given the availability of willing contributors, its newness, the lack of WW-love and releases, maybe a bold route would involve positing IntelliJ IDEA as the “traditional IDE” for the WL?).
I also want to make a final point, perhaps off-topic and obvious but one that I feel sometimes gets overlooked in such discussions. It is not just the technology that is at issue here, nor even the education of how to use it effectively but equally pivotal are the designs on which it operates. My experience is that a soundly designed architecture on a limited IDE will every time beat a poorly designed architecture on a state-of-the-art IDE.
1 Like
Wolfram has up-to-date version of the Eclipse plug-in - please see Wolfram Support Quick Answers: How do I install the Wolfram Workbench plugin for Eclipse? for more details.
4 Likes
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.
Yes, ‘my’ Workbench 2.x has been sleeping the sleep of the just deep within my software relics vault for about three or four years.
I also would like to know about the official status of this “release.” Workbench 2 appears as an entry in my user portal under “My Products and Services” and is installed by an installer. It was advertised as a benefit of Premier Service. I have been using an unannounced Workbench 3, provided by tech support and also installed by an installer. I assumed this to be a pre-release but, if so, the real release has been a long time coming.
The link points to a “quick answer” in the Wolfram support site. It makes no mention of Premier Service, and gives an installation procedure which requires interacting with Eclipse rather than an installer. It is obviously recent, since it references MMA 11.0.1, but it isn’t dated. And it does not state (or I don’t find) a version number for Workbench. Is this Workbench 3? Or is this how you install Workbench 2 without an installer? If it’s Workbench 3, does this mean it’s not offered as a real product, but instead we can install for ourselves an internal Wolfram tool, and use it at our own risk and without support?
Available to everyone, even without Premiere Service! This is excellent news. Making the documentation tools available to every Mathematica user was very much necessary. I hope that this will lead to more people publishing quality packages.
1 Like
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.
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.
2 Likes
Is the download available from the following page, with the downloaded .zip dated Oct 28, 2016, the new version of the Eclipse plug-in you’re referring to? That is, a version compatible with Mathematica 11?
Yep, that the same plugin!
And it works with the 64-bit version of Eclipse Neon?
I looked at Wolfram Support Quick Answers: How do I install the Wolfram Workbench plugin for Eclipse?, 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.
64-bit Eclipse will work on all 64bit operating systems.
Yes, I know that 64-bit Eclipse will work on my 64-bit macOS, but will the Wolfram Workbench plug-in work with that?
(I ask because posts in various places in the past seemed to say that the plug-in worked only with 32-bit versions of Eclipse.)