Live data from Hacker News

Putting the I back in IDE

blog.janestreet.com

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#51
"Every branch of every repo gets its own sandboxed directory. Your revision history in each branch, including uncommitted stuff, is persisted, as are build artifacts. When you switch contexts, each project is just as you left it."

Isn't that just svn? Why force a git-shaped peg into an svn-shaped hole?

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#52
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what you use tooltips They show documentation (pulled from comments) for functions, classes and arguments. > and context menus For context-sensitive commands I use once per week or less often, so I don’t bother memorizing keyboard shortcuts for them. > most command-line editors are actually GUIs in the terminal Most developers don’t use command line editors. Here’s recent data from this year: https://i…

Those stats are also probably skewed in favor of people actually bothering to fill their survey. Those are more likely to be active/proactive, which in my experience is correlated with tinkering with tools (ergo, using Vim or Emacs).

> Those stats are also probably skewed in favor of people actually bothering to fill their survey. Those are more likely to be active/proactive, which in my experience is correlated with tinkering with tools (ergo, using Vim or Emacs).

and yet:

> Most developers don’t use command line editors. Here’s recent data from this year: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#development-e.... As you see, 4 most popular editors are VS Code, Visual Studio, Notepad++ and Sublime Text, all of them are GUI applications. Only 26% developers use Vim, 4% Emacs.

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#53
post #7

This is cool, I guess. Personally coding in a terminal like window for me would be awful - I like using my mouse to navigate among folders and save stuff etc in Atom/VSCode like environments. Plus, how often are people switching branches of code that the number of key strokes for git becomes a problem? Seems like an overengineered solution for a very niche audience - if it works for them great though.

I recently started using Emacs in a tiling window manager on Linux after using "standard" GUI editors like PyCharm, AppCode, Atom, VSCode, etc. on macOS. At first, I felt exactly like you describe - it felt so constraining not having a tree view and tabs I could click on. But after a while I got used to using a keyboard shortcut to quickly jump between files or search for a file to open. I'm slowly getting used to it…

And with pycharm you'd have simply used a generator preset for uuids.

There's even a dozen of generator presets integrated, you can just easily invoke them from your keyboard, without pressing all modifier keys at once.

And PyCharm even has all the keyboard navigation as well, you can even get emacs or vi keybindings, if you wish, I only use the mouse when the app's already running and I'm going through the log.

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#54
this is a HCI problem. I dont think text is better than IDE or web-based code review or branch management. I'm a vim user and i have to say making everything in one terminal looks cool but really not that intuitive..

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#57
post #27

Visual Studio does everything within the same window (source code management, code review, diffs). Yes, it's great. It does not need any 'new' paradigm, that's the standard operating modus. It's a good thing this ideology of tools that simplify the process is spreading. But it's not novel. This article sounds like the author never used Visual Studio.

Worse, that interface would be a child's play to implement in Turbo Vision on MS-DOS.

Released in 1990.

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#58

This is cool, I guess. Personally coding in a terminal like window for me would be awful - I like using my mouse to navigate among folders and save stuff etc in Atom/VSCode like environments. Plus, how often are people switching branches of code that the number of key strokes for git becomes a problem? Seems like an overengineered solution for a very niche audience - if it works for them great though.

I use NeoVim in tmux pretty much exclusively.

You can turn on mouse support for terminal apps like Vim and Emacs and still click things like the file viewer, scroll text with two fingers and resize windows with a mouse.

You just have to configure it.

This to my mind is the real difference between classic editors like Vim and Emacs and GUI IDEs.

With the terminal editors you can be at least sure that you'll get a comprehensive keyboard interface system, I haven't always found that with GUI IDEs especially when it comes to third party plugins.

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#59
post #38

If you walked into an office and saw them using 1984 equipment — fax machines, landlines and Rolodexes — you'd think the company is hopelessly behind times. Jane Street is a cutting-edge technology corporation, but their internal tools use 80*25 text-mode UIs just like the ones you'd find on a 1984 IBM PC/AT. It's not the company's fault: we developers are stuck in the tar pit of an unfortunate local maximum with all…

Only those that never took their eyes out of UNIX culture.

Those of us that made a pilgrimage in other more graphics friendly environments, Xerox, ETHZ, Amiga, Atari, ...., have long left the 70's AT&T concept of programing behind.

Re: Putting the I back in IDE

#60
post #38

If you walked into an office and saw them using 1984 equipment — fax machines, landlines and Rolodexes — you'd think the company is hopelessly behind times. Jane Street is a cutting-edge technology corporation, but their internal tools use 80*25 text-mode UIs just like the ones you'd find on a 1984 IBM PC/AT. It's not the company's fault: we developers are stuck in the tar pit of an unfortunate local maximum with all…

> It's not the company's fault

On the contrary, I think Jane Street's entire modus operandi is doing things in a novel way, to attract/keep talent (and this is self perpetuating). There are many firms as successful as Jane Street, or more so, that use completely boring, but functional tools: Java, C++, Visual Studio, IntelliJ, and so on. But Jane Street PR is through the roof - everyone knows it, everyone wants to work there, whether any of it is practical or not. It's a counter-example to the mantra of "choose boring tools".

Post reply on HN