I've been remarkably busy working on issues and documentation so I neglected an important announcement I had to make. Over the weekend we flipped the default build from gradle back to ant. So effectively if you don't set any build hint the behavior will be
android.gradle false which should work fine for most of you. This is temporary but we felt it was necessary as a stopgap measure.
Facebook recently announced the closing of parse.com which is disappointing but not totally surprising. Everyone knows a project from a large tech company can just shutdown in a blink of an eye leaving millions of users/developers in limbo. In that sense one of the questions that gets under my skin is what happens if Codename One calls it quits...Read More
We are thrilled to announce the immediate availability of Codename One 3.3!
With version 3.3 was tumultuous, we made a lot of earth shattering changes to performance, animations, fonts and many other things. As a result we have a ground-breaking release that requires a step back.
With 3.4 we want to tone down on the "big ticket changes" and work heavily on product refinement. We are already hard at work updating our docs and refining our general process..
We've been working feverishly to get Codename One 3.3 out of the door next week. Tomorrow morning we will finally have the codefreeze branch for 3.3 and we'll be able to focus on getting the docs/release in order.
The release should be on the 27th of the month and we should ideally get the plugins out of the door within the next couple of days.
JavaDoc source code embeds suck!
I love JavaDoc but it didn't age well. When you work with other tools (e.g. in the Microsoft world) suddenly the embedded samples look amazing and "search" functionality is just built in!
Why can't we have that?
JDK 9 is introducing new support for search but source embeds can be so much better and are a crucial learning tool...
Following with the feedback on the recent survey we spent a lot of time debating how we can improve the general process of documentation and ideally have the community more involved. So one of the first things we did is place our entire developer guide directly into the Codename One Wiki!
This allows any one of you without any special permissions (just a standard github account) to edit the wiki directly. No pull request or anything like that required. The syntax is based on asciidoc which is reasonably intuitive so if you see something wrong/missing etc. just edit it directly, we review all changes after the fact so if you get something wrong we will fix it!
I deeply care about what we do at Codename One and writing a negative post even when the words aren't mine is difficult. I think one of the most valuable thing about an open project is honesty and open communications even when that's unpleasant, without open criticism we can't get better.
Chen recently sent out a request to fill out our survey via direct mail and responses came streaming in. Added to the guys who filled it out after our previous blog post we got a lot of additional valuable feedback. We can't satisfy everyone and we shouldn't aim to, however developers who spent time answering our survey probably like the basic concept of Codename One and should be happy. Most of them by a good margin (over 90%) are happy, but its only a good margin not a great margin and in this post I'd like to hash up the problems.
I had a big post ready for today but after a long twitter debate with @BrendanEich I had to write a followup as twitter is a poor medium for that level of debate.
This started with a blog post from Andreas Gal who effectively took the exact opposite stance to mine on Google's move to OpenJDK.
Then Mr. Eich picked it up...
I think we'll remember 2015 as the year we finally "hit our stride" and "got it". Up until now we did a lot of things correctly but were a bit disorganized both in the way we communicated Codename One and in the refinement of the product itself.
We changed and refined almost every piece of Codename One in 2015 and the results were great. But we want to do better so here is my analysis of what we did wrong (both in 2015 and before) and what we did right. Followed by the initial survey results and feedback from we got from you guys and our 2016 direction.