What about Java on Emacs in commercial project?

What about Java on Emacs in commercial project?

[Haolin]

Hi, all
I know emacs is a very very good editor, I use it for more than 1 year. 
 From now on, I need to migrate from C to Java, for JavaEE development. 
My friends tell me to use eclipse, but I think maybe emacs can do 
everything I want. So I want to know:
Should Emacs be used for production environment? in real commercial 
project with Ejb, Web Service and Jsps? I know I can use Ant or Maven 
instead of eclipse wtp, but should Emacs supply
Grammar Tips and other important features? for example, I add a jar 
package to my classpath of project, should the classes and methods be 
read from emacs?
I tried JDEE, but it looks like a toy and not , maybe it's a good tool, 
but not fit for conmmercial project.

Thanks!

Haolin

Re: What about Java on Emacs in commercial project?

[Ken Goldman]

My personal opinion is that Eclipse, Visual C++, and other IDEs, are 
better at project management and debugging, but emacs is a better source 
code editor.

Generally, I use the IDE to set up the project, insert boilerplate, 
compile, and debug.  I use emacs for writing the code.

Both emacs and most IDEs can automatically detect that a file has 
changed on disk and reload it, so I don't have to worry about keeping 
them synchronized.

Haolin wrote:
> Hi, all I know emacs is a very very good editor, I use it for more
> than 1 year. From now on, I need to migrate from C to Java, for
> JavaEE development. My friends tell me to use eclipse, but I think
> maybe emacs can do everything I want. So I want to know: Should Emacs
> be used for production environment? in real commercial project with
> Ejb, Web Service and Jsps? I know I can use Ant or Maven instead of
> eclipse wtp, but should Emacs supply Grammar Tips and other important
> features? for example, I add a jar package to my classpath of
> project, should the classes and methods be read from emacs? I tried
> JDEE, but it looks like a toy and not , maybe it's a good tool, but
> not fit for conmmercial project.