Live data from Hacker News

No more JetBrains products for me

matthewkosarek.xyz

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#171
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had you honestly imagined that Emacs doesn't have excellent debugging tools?

No it doesn't, unless it magically got them since XEmacs, with someone taking the effort to duplicate all features in ELisp. Running gdb as subprocess, with breakpoints, step, run, continue, is the basic stuff.

It has. GUD is pretty good. Emacs itself has improved vastly since XEmacs was popular.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#172
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had you honestly imagined that Emacs doesn't have excellent debugging tools?

I imagine that just way more work was poured into VS/Jetbrains debuggers and that they have better UX and better features. I don’t have to offer my soul to make it work just pay money ;)

> I imagine that just way more work was poured into VS/Jetbrains debuggers

I'm fascinated at how vastly different our perspectives are. From my POV, I'd be shocked if VS/Jetbrains had a fraction of the work poured into them that Emacs or Vim have.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#173
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Text editors just format and display text. IDEs have compilers, debuggers, indexers, source control integration, analysis tooling, WSL integration, SSH integration, and whatever plugins you might have installed.

Why would a compiler take up resources when you’re not compiling anything?

To show compilation errors as you type.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDE's format and display text. Outside of compiling, they should respond instantly on a blight-ridden potato, with resources to spare.

Text editors just format and display text. IDEs have compilers, debuggers, indexers, source control integration, analysis tooling, WSL integration, SSH integration, and whatever plugins you might have installed.

Does that definition of “text editor” still describe anything commonly used? Language servers cover a lot of that. SSH and source control are ubiquitous. I can’t think of anything in years I’ve heard of people using that would count as just a text editor.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#175
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a compiler take up resources when you’re not compiling anything?

To show compilation errors as you type.

Why not show the UI immediately and start the language server asynchronously in the background, like Neovim does it?

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#176
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that just way more work was poured into VS/Jetbrains debuggers and that they have better UX and better features. I don’t have to offer my soul to make it work just pay money ;)

> I imagine that just way more work was poured into VS/Jetbrains debuggers I'm fascinated at how vastly different our perspectives are. From my POV, I'd be shocked if VS/Jetbrains had a fraction of the work poured into them that Emacs or Vim have.

VS and JetBrains IDEs have very good sane defaults. They're usable out of the box. In VS I load a .sln file, or a project containing CMakeLists.txt, press F5, and I am debugging with a full-fledged data structure visualisation, CPU and heap profiling, and I can even add in time-travel debugging with a couple of clicks.

I have to manually set all of this up in Vim or Emacs, and frankly the debugging experience in GDB or LLDB is worse than it really ought to be. People actually need to use good tools to understand how nice things can be.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#177
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, don't you reverse into a parking space and drive straight out?

I always wonder why people do this. What’s the reasoning?

When you have a tight spot, getting into it in reverse is the only way to do it safely — your front wheels can turn but your rear wheels can’t.

However I always park with the front to the exit, since I might find myself in a situation where I have to drive away very quickly.

It might be anything from a dumpster truck about to block the street to some kind of family emergency.

I have the 20 seconds now but I can't be sure I will have them in the morning.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#178
post #9
post #4

IDEs are dead in the age of agentic coding. Trying to find the stable point of agentic coding is like trying to catch a falling knife. Will you still need to look at diffs? I for one no longer make any edits, as a policy - I either tell the agent to fix it, or tweak a skill or memory or doc so it doesn't make the same mistake a second time, or configure something adversarial. But does that continue indefinitely?

Say what? I rather have my agents talking to my IDEs.

There are people who move into the future, and there are those who stick their heads in the sand. It was ever thus.

There's still room for something vaguely IDE shaped, but it's not going to be code oriented.

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#179

> It is so remarkably slow, and I cannot begin to understand these people that are telling me that it runs fast. Granted, I tend to run older hardware Always hard to interpret these complaints when the author won't reveal what hardware they're talking about, other than that it's old. I think Zed is a great option for someone who is both highly critical of load times and has older hardware. I would not have recommende…

IDE's format and display text. Outside of compiling, they should respond instantly on a blight-ridden potato, with resources to spare.

  IDE's format and display text
This is only a small part of what IDEs are doing. Also, even just formatting and displaying text is hella difficult. How many years was Zed in development until 1.0?

Re: No more JetBrains products for me

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. In either case the car traverses the same space once forwards and once backwards.

That's true, but what GP is saying is that when you're pulling out, you are traversing the part of the space overwhelmingly more likely to contain passing pedestrians and vehicles with full visibility. And then some parking spots require parallel parking which is best done via backing up anyway.

I don't think you understood what my comment says. The whole point is that it covers your "but".
Post reply on HN