 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / Tools / August 2004Eclipse 3.0 is huge
I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun alright - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny one-class test project. I think I'm sticking with Jbuilder. Dave >I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun alright >- the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny one-class test [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dave You can get the eclipse-platform-3.0-win32.zip at 24.4 Mb and eclipse-JDT-3.0.zip at 14.4 Mb. Those are only two that you really need (for Java). That is assuming that you already have a J2SE 1.4 jvm. ------- Remove underscores from e-mail address. > You can get the eclipse-platform-3.0-win32.zip at 24.4 Mb and > eclipse-JDT-3.0.zip at 14.4 Mb. Those are only two that you really > need (for Java). That's the size of zip files. I'm talking about the image size of javaw when Eclipse is actually running. It's enormous: about 100 MB. Dave > I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun > alright - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny > one-class test project. > > I think I'm sticking with Jbuilder. I'm just curious... does JBuilder use less memory than Eclipse? I mean RAM, not hard drive space or anything. As to your question: Joe is right, you only need the Platform and JDT binaries for Java development. Regards, Wald >I'm just curious... does JBuilder use less memory than Eclipse? I >mean RAM, not hard drive space or anything. Depends on the distribution. JBuilder Foundation and Eclipse 3 have about the same memory requirements. They also have roughly the same feature set. > I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun alright > - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny one-class test > project. > > I think I'm sticking with Jbuilder. Every IDE I can think of is overkill for just a "tiny one-class test project". If you don't know you to get the job done with a text editor and the Java command-line tools then you ought to learn. You will be more effective when you do use an IDE, and you won't be lost if ever you are temporarily without one. If you have resolved to use an IDE in any case, then memory footprint is probably not a particularly good criterion on which to choose the right one. It's like comparing the mass of a sperm whale to the mass of a blue whale: yes, one is larger than the other, but they're both _huge_. As long as the tank fits both, either one will suffice for a whale exhibit. John Bollinger jobollin@indiana.edu >> I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun >> alright - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Every IDE I can think of is overkill for just a "tiny one-class test > project". That's not the point. The point is, even with a tiny one-class test project, it's 100 MB, so imagine what it will be like with something real. > If you don't know you to get the job done with a text editor > and the Java command-line tools then you ought to learn. I do know how, thank you. IDEs are too useful to give up. JBuilder will tell you when you have a syntax error or undeclared variable before you compile it. It helps you manage multiple-file builds. It lets you navigate a class through its membership. It emulates Emacs in its editor. It will take care of classpath issues for you. It will do a lot of things. And it's FREE. I don't need all of the things it does, there's no way I would go to a straight text editor and javac. No way. > If you have resolved to use an IDE in any case, then memory footprint is > probably not a particularly good criterion on which to choose the right > one. It's one of the criteria, and a perfectly valid one. I just started up JBuilder, with two projects, one of them largish. It came to 50 MB. Eclipse is too big. Dave >>> I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun >>> alright - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my tiny [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Dave Sounds like your mind is made up, which is fine. I have some projects with hundreds of classes, some of them rather large. I don't see much change in the memory image with those loaded up. Running them, however, is a different story. After a few hundred objects are created is when memory usage can be an issue. Any developer machine is going to need a lot of memory. Hard to get around that. ------- Remove underscores from e-mail address. > Sounds like your mind is made up, which is fine. I have some > projects with hundreds of classes, some of them rather large. I don't > see much change in the memory image with those loaded up. Maybe not. If it actually stops at 100 MB, then that might not be so bad. I'm used to JBuilder's image size growing with use, which might be a specific problem with JBuilder that Eclipse wouldn't have. I only have 256MB on my Win2K machine, and I suppose I should join the modern world. > Any developer machine is going to need a lot of memory. Hard > to get around that. I'm not sure I buy that. That seems to me to be just a rationale for over-sized IDEs like Visual (Fee-fi-fo-fum!) Studio. Eclipse is built on SWT, which is supposed to be more efficient and close to native widgets than Sun's GUI layer. I guess I had hoped for a smaller, more efficient IDE than what I saw in Eclipse 3.0. My favorite IDE of all time is still Intellij's IDEA, but that program really was a memory hog. Dave >> Sounds like your mind is made up, which is fine. I have some >> projects with hundreds of classes, some of them rather large. I don't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dave You should have seen Visual Age For Java, the predecessor of eclipse. That was a pig. And this was before computers were regularly sold with lots of memory and fast processors (a speedy disk was also necessary). I think I'm living large after 3 years of VAJ. ------- Remove underscores from e-mail address. > That's not the point. The point is, even with a tiny one-class test > project, it's 100 MB, so imagine what it will be like with something real. Maybe 101 MB. -Paul > That's not the point. The point is, even with a tiny one-class test > project, it's 100 MB, so imagine what it will be like with something real. I find that Eclipse 3.0 on win2k after start takes up 30 MB with no open projects and 75 MB after opening and rebuilding two "real-life" projects. I don't think I have ever seen it above 150 MB in peak memory use, but I regularly see it drop down to 2 MB when minimized and 20-30 MB just after normalize. From daily usage, I percieve Eclipse as an application that has very good control over its memory usage and as an IDE I think it has a good balance between memory usage and speed of access to feature. Regards,  SignatureFilip Larsen > I downloaded Eclipse 3.0 last night. Eclipse blots out the sun > alright - the image size is 100 MB! And that's just for my > tiny one-class test project. You have a one-class test project and you feel like you know enough to criticize IDEs? SignatureGalen Boyer Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.