12 ms·

Why would anyone not want the power of an ide? Is it a Unix tough guy thing where there’s nothing that a GUI app does that you can’t do better in a terminal? O

Why would anyone not want the power of an ide? Is it a Unix tough guy thing where there’s nothing that a GUI app does that you can’t do better in a terminal? Or is it that you’ve never really spent a lot of time in a professional ide so when you argue against it, it’s cause you don’t know?

omidmnzadeh 8y ago
I've used several IDEs before. I used one when Eclipse was the go-to option. Then all the attention went to IntelliJ. But none of them gave me what my Emacs+Evil setup gave me, while the Emacs side got "almost" everything they gave me.
Theodores 8y ago
Probably this. IDE developers listen to users and they do build in those features that make vim better than Notepad. Same with grep and anything else command line excellent. I think it is best not to think one or the other but use both. iDEs work on Linux and have a terminal window built in. So that is how to do it, vim keyboard bindings too.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  Vim keyboard bindings offer nowhere near the capabilities of a real Vim. They only offer the basics and never advanced vim features. Vim is so much more then just keybindings, it is more of a text manipulation language. There is only one exception to that and that is Emacs Evil mode. The other way around is much more likely: Vim plugins offer all those IDE features and integrate them seamless into vim and its way of manipulating text. Honestly, after learning and modifying vim for myself I found IDEs to be limited, bloated and slow.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    I thought the same until recently and found the underlying java nonsense of an IDE to be slow, forever indexing. But due to work I had to use an IDE. Much to my surprise it was not slow. Plus I learn from it. I like the code errors showing and I like learning new things from the auto complete. I also like the plugins for database and Redis stores. Plus debugging is great. Give it a go and avoid modding down those that wish to share their experiences!
    - VonGallifrey 8y ago
      I used plenty of IDEs (from free ones up to expensive enterprise IDEs) and I still prefer Vim. In fact I started with an enterprise Visual Studio when I first started programming and only years later switched to Vim. Which IDE do you use now? I am willing to give it a try, but most likely I already have. Vim can be configured to show code errors (by integrating linters, static code analysis or "just" by integrating the compiler, or doing all 3). Vim can also be configured to do auto complete. Actually I have not found a IDE that can provide Python (which I use a lot) autocomplete better or up to the standard that vim has and I have not found a IDE that can provide autocomplete for so many different languages. Database work and debugging is something I mostly just use specialized tools for and don't have a need to integrate that into my text editor. Sure it was nice to just click and have a break point on that line like I did in Visual Studio, but that isn't something I miss. Also: What do you mean by "modding down"?
falcolas 8y ago
All my opinion, of course. I learned Python much better because I did not use an IDE. I've written Java and C# using IDEs. I barely remember anything about their standard libraries. Python, in comparison, I know like the back of my hand. Thanks to writing Python in vim, I had to reference the docs, and eventually memorized them. Like vim itself, it made for a steeper learning curve, but the productivity gains in the decade after have been well worth it. I've since done the same thing with Go. And that's not even mentioning that vim is an IDE - it's an extensible C IDE. Building with go-to-line errors? Yup. View definition? Yup. Syntax highlighting? Yup. The only thing it's missing is having the debugger built into it. In the end, vim has the best features of an IDE without the bloat. It makes you use your brain when writing new code while giving you the ability to navigate your existing code with ease.
- lghh 8y ago
  > I barely remember anything about their standard libraries. If an IDE can abstract that memorization away from you, what's the problem? The benefit I provide as a software developer is to solve business problems and provide value to the people that use my product. Knowing the optional third parameter to a string method I use once a month off the top of my head really doesn't help me with that as long as looking it up isn't slowing me down.
  - jrockway 8y ago
    I think the problem is always in the breadth of understanding. When you read documentation you discover more than exactly what you're looking for. When you tab complete something, it just tells you all the methods in the class that start with the letters you typed.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    > If an IDE can abstract that memorization away from you, what's the problem? It's more knowing what's available (do I have to use a 3rd party library for X task), and being able to fill in the parameters (as well as having those parameters ready) before the IDE prompts me for it. Sure, pulling up the documentation isn't a huge chore in an IDE, but if I'm not prepared to give the third parameter a calculated length, I then have to go back and write more code before I can move forward. It's also "how do metaclasses work" and "what types am I dealing with" and "how will this type be coerced in this situation" and "is monkey patching appropriate for testing this method". Ultimately, it's about having sharp tools. My brain is a tool, and the more complete the picture of how a problem fits a programming language is, the more efficient I'll be at coming up with a working solution.
ci5er 8y ago
I use IntelliJ for certain tasks because I don't know Java as well as I should. It certainly makes me more effective as a guy who doesn't know Java very well! I traditionally used vi for C coding (mostly for embedded systems in parallel with assembly, and then later on Vaxxen, and then Sun machines, and later Linux and embedded systems again). Part of the effect was "time-in-tool", but I certainly know C a lot better than I will every know Java. I guess I would posit that I find the IDE invaluable to get up-and-going with a new language (and complex ecosystem of packages), I find out that I plateau out (learning-wise) at a lower level. IF Java didn't have so much boiler-plate (esp. on Android), I'd probably have tossed it by now. But it does, so I haven't. I'm probably getting old and lazy and accepting my degraded knowledge set as a necessary cost...
sanderjd 8y ago
Personally, I think IDEs are better for working but text editors are better for learning. If I'm using an IDE and need to call some method, I press press ctrl-space and more or less guess at which of the options is right. If I'm using a text editor and need to call some method, I go read the docs to figure out what the right method is. The latter is both slower and better for learning.
rcxdude 8y ago
I spent a long time wrestling with trying to set up IDEs when I was learning. They were always a huge pain to set up, broke in confusing ways, and were generally far more effort than they were worth for the productivity gain (especially when I would try some other language/etc after a short period and go through it all again). Just using a text editor and the compiler was far easier to understand. I still find some aspects of modern IDEs a pain, especially the fact that they either want to be your build system (and are generally crap at that) or lock you into a specific build system. Likewise I haven't found one IDE which can handle the variety of languages I use, so I need to learn 3, even if they all do basically the same thing. I have some hope with the trend towards 'language servers' and also 'build-system servers' (though ATM cmake and Qtcreator are the only example I know of the latter), that this will change and you will be free to choose your combination of build system, development environment, and language with ease.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Try IntelliJ if you want something that works with a lot of languages and handles all of them really well.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    Indeed, I use PyCharm as one of my IDEs. I may try CLion for embedded C/C++, but this is still restricted to ARM basically (and CLion supports CMake only, which is the least bad of the C/C++ build systems in common use, but still this is the kind of baggage that comes with an IDE which is not a problem with 'UNIX as IDE').
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I think if you have IntelliJ Ultimate it combines the features of the various IntelliJ spin-offs.
      - pseudalopex 8y ago
        Most of them, but CLion is an exception.
jrockway 8y ago
People are not sure what benefit is going to be provided to make up for the inferior text manipulation capabilities. I remember tab completion being a big thing. When I was a new programmer, I really wanted that stuff, for sure. But as I see it now, I find the cases where I don't remember the name of the function I want to call rarer, instead wondering about the undocumented things like "is this method thread-safe?", "who owns the memory for this result object?", "what happens when the connection times out?", "does the error message this function returns contain the name of the file it couldn't open, or do I have to add it myself?" and so on, and the only way to find out is to open the source code of the library I'm using and to read it. Like maybe IDE tooling has evolved to the point where it's just one keystroke to get the right answers to those questions, but I kind of doubt it. So if you want to demean people for not using an IDE, you need to sell it a little better and tell us what we're missing. If it's just tab completion and a shitty build system like IDEs were 10 years ago... not interested but thanks. If there is something that's actually helpful though, would consider.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  What inferior text manipulation capabilities?
  - jrockway 8y ago
    I've always found basic text manipulation lacking in the GUI apps I've used. "Make this comment fit in 100 columns without losing paragraphs" "move the next line up to the end of this line" "go to line 647" "move the cursor to the beginning of this method" etc. My knowledge dates from the "one keystroke to convert this to a JavaBean!" era, though. I'm guessing people don't do that anymore.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I just have IntelliJ configured to use Emacs key bindings; vi ones are also available for people who use the wrong text editor.
VonGallifrey 8y ago
I can't get the features of VIM in an IDE. I CAN get IDE features in VIM. I get syntax highlighting, Automatic Checks, Navigation based on Language structures. I even can integrate my shell and debuggers into VIM, but I don't use do that. I use those usually just as a stand alone tool. VIM and Emacs also have the absolute best git integration I have ever seen. Magit for emacs and Fugitive for Vim are absolutely fantastic. Certainly beats any IDE I have ever used. I can't think of anything that I would like to have from any IDE. MY vim is a much better tool for me then any of the IDEs that I have used in the last 10 Years. I started out with IDEs, because that is what my teachers and mentors used, but once I learned vim the IDEs just seem painfully slow and limited. It is also not the case that I just don't know better. I certainly have used many IDEs in the past. For example I used Visual Studio (Not "VS Code", the proper enterprise VS) for 2 Years.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's false though. You totally can get the features of vim in your IDE.
gkya 8y ago
I run Emacs, in GUI mode. If the language tool have a debugger and/or an interpreter, there is the IDE. In the rare case that there is not a ready made comint implementation for a language, it's easy to do. Completion, well M-/ is good enough. If I don't know a function's name, I need to read the manual to find it and to learn what it does anyways. If I need snippets, it's easy to define them, even without an Emacs minor mode for snippets. Every part of the system is extensible, every keybinding redefinable, and almost every functionality composable. And almost any programming language with more than ten users has an Emacs major mode already made for it. If I really want semantic completion or on-the-fly error reporting and linting (I don't use these out of preference), it's dead simple to integrate and enable. Not only, but I can use the same thing to read my mail, maintain my agenda and create and edit documents. With an IDE, I need another IDE for every language I use. Then I still need a text editor for editing text anyways. Each editor has it's unique method of customisation, and its conventions, its own keybindings, its own behaviour &c, and its own way to store customisations, which are hard to version control, if possible. And substantial customisation that requires custom code is either impossible or very hard to do. Emacs is an IDE for Emacs Lisp. But it's so naturally extensible that it's become an application platform, basically. If all you do for all your career is to write in one language or two, then go with an IDE, I guess. But I'm glad I can use the same program to edit Perl, Python, Ruby, any sort of text, HTML, C, Assembly, Ada, Cobol, JavaScript, CoffeScript, Clojure, ClojureScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Haskel, and so on; and do way more with it than editing source code.
marcosdumay 8y ago
An IDE gives you: 1 - Autocomplete and automatic code, those are the main benefit. Turns out that if your computer can write code for you there is something wrong with either your language or your code. Code generation is a bad replacement for code abstraction. 2 - On the fly error checking. Turns out that vi and emacs do that too. 3 - Coherent access to compiling and debugging tools. As long as you want to use the IDE tools and nothing better, at the price of loss of productivity every time you must reconfigure it, or share an environment with anybody. 4 - In place documentation. Again, vi and emacs do that just fine too. If you are using a language that requires an IDE (that's a big language flaw, but most people don't get to choose), and wants to use a very standard and non-extensible toolset, go ahead and get that IDE. But the people disagreeing with you, it's not they that don't know something.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  The on-the-fly error and smell checking Emacs does is better than nothing but it's on a different level than a good IDE.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    Hum... It marks the failures found by the CLI compilers and linters, exactly like any "good IDE" out there. What IDE are you referring to?
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I'm mostly an IntelliJ (and variants: RubyMine, Webstorm, Rider, PhpStorm, etc.) user, although I also use Visual Studio. In my experience, Emacs plugins for many languages often have a feel of working more on looking for matching words in the code rather than "understanding" what the code is doing, let alone suggesting good refactors.
      - marcosdumay 8y ago
        IntelliJ's linters are indeed unusually rich on the deepness and complexity of their rules. But not on the universality, the reason that I consider them unusable, since I just don't like to turn rules off. Anyway, that's a feature of their linters. It just happens to be packaged with their IDE, but it's a completely different tool.
kapv89 8y ago
Want to try the best of both worlds? Right now, you can experience ide-level autocompletion and type-checking in vim if you are working with typescript and have typescript-vim plugin. Just do one decent sized software with typescript+vim. Even intellij ides seem like bloated and inefficient software after that. PS: gvim is fine too. Easier copy to, and paste from clipboard.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  Just to add to that: Vim has ide-level autocompletion and type-checking for many languages and not just typescript.

omidmnzadeh 8y ago

I've used several IDEs before. I used one when Eclipse was the go-to option. Then all the attention went to IntelliJ. But none of them gave me what my Emacs+Evil setup gave me, while the Emacs side got "almost" everything they gave me.

Theodores 8y ago

Probably this. IDE developers listen to users and they do build in those features that make vim better than Notepad. Same with grep and anything else command line excellent. I think it is best not to think one or the other but use both. iDEs work on Linux and have a terminal window built in. So that is how to do it, vim keyboard bindings too.

VonGallifrey 8y ago
Vim keyboard bindings offer nowhere near the capabilities of a real Vim. They only offer the basics and never advanced vim features. Vim is so much more then just keybindings, it is more of a text manipulation language. There is only one exception to that and that is Emacs Evil mode. The other way around is much more likely: Vim plugins offer all those IDE features and integrate them seamless into vim and its way of manipulating text. Honestly, after learning and modifying vim for myself I found IDEs to be limited, bloated and slow.
- Theodores 8y ago
  I thought the same until recently and found the underlying java nonsense of an IDE to be slow, forever indexing. But due to work I had to use an IDE. Much to my surprise it was not slow. Plus I learn from it. I like the code errors showing and I like learning new things from the auto complete. I also like the plugins for database and Redis stores. Plus debugging is great. Give it a go and avoid modding down those that wish to share their experiences!
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    I used plenty of IDEs (from free ones up to expensive enterprise IDEs) and I still prefer Vim. In fact I started with an enterprise Visual Studio when I first started programming and only years later switched to Vim. Which IDE do you use now? I am willing to give it a try, but most likely I already have. Vim can be configured to show code errors (by integrating linters, static code analysis or "just" by integrating the compiler, or doing all 3). Vim can also be configured to do auto complete. Actually I have not found a IDE that can provide Python (which I use a lot) autocomplete better or up to the standard that vim has and I have not found a IDE that can provide autocomplete for so many different languages. Database work and debugging is something I mostly just use specialized tools for and don't have a need to integrate that into my text editor. Sure it was nice to just click and have a break point on that line like I did in Visual Studio, but that isn't something I miss. Also: What do you mean by "modding down"?

falcolas 8y ago

All my opinion, of course. I learned Python much better because I did not use an IDE. I've written Java and C# using IDEs. I barely remember anything about their standard libraries. Python, in comparison, I know like the back of my hand. Thanks to writing Python in vim, I had to reference the docs, and eventually memorized them. Like vim itself, it made for a steeper learning curve, but the productivity gains in the decade after have been well worth it. I've since done the same thing with Go. And that's not even mentioning that vim is an IDE - it's an extensible C IDE. Building with go-to-line errors? Yup. View definition? Yup. Syntax highlighting? Yup. The only thing it's missing is having the debugger built into it. In the end, vim has the best features of an IDE without the bloat. It makes you use your brain when writing new code while giving you the ability to navigate your existing code with ease.

lghh 8y ago
> I barely remember anything about their standard libraries. If an IDE can abstract that memorization away from you, what's the problem? The benefit I provide as a software developer is to solve business problems and provide value to the people that use my product. Knowing the optional third parameter to a string method I use once a month off the top of my head really doesn't help me with that as long as looking it up isn't slowing me down.
- jrockway 8y ago
  I think the problem is always in the breadth of understanding. When you read documentation you discover more than exactly what you're looking for. When you tab complete something, it just tells you all the methods in the class that start with the letters you typed.
- falcolas 8y ago
  > If an IDE can abstract that memorization away from you, what's the problem? It's more knowing what's available (do I have to use a 3rd party library for X task), and being able to fill in the parameters (as well as having those parameters ready) before the IDE prompts me for it. Sure, pulling up the documentation isn't a huge chore in an IDE, but if I'm not prepared to give the third parameter a calculated length, I then have to go back and write more code before I can move forward. It's also "how do metaclasses work" and "what types am I dealing with" and "how will this type be coerced in this situation" and "is monkey patching appropriate for testing this method". Ultimately, it's about having sharp tools. My brain is a tool, and the more complete the picture of how a problem fits a programming language is, the more efficient I'll be at coming up with a working solution.

ci5er 8y ago

I use IntelliJ for certain tasks because I don't know Java as well as I should. It certainly makes me more effective as a guy who doesn't know Java very well! I traditionally used vi for C coding (mostly for embedded systems in parallel with assembly, and then later on Vaxxen, and then Sun machines, and later Linux and embedded systems again). Part of the effect was "time-in-tool", but I certainly know C a lot better than I will every know Java. I guess I would posit that I find the IDE invaluable to get up-and-going with a new language (and complex ecosystem of packages), I find out that I plateau out (learning-wise) at a lower level. IF Java didn't have so much boiler-plate (esp. on Android), I'd probably have tossed it by now. But it does, so I haven't. I'm probably getting old and lazy and accepting my degraded knowledge set as a necessary cost...

sanderjd 8y ago

Personally, I think IDEs are better for working but text editors are better for learning. If I'm using an IDE and need to call some method, I press press ctrl-space and more or less guess at which of the options is right. If I'm using a text editor and need to call some method, I go read the docs to figure out what the right method is. The latter is both slower and better for learning.

rcxdude 8y ago

I spent a long time wrestling with trying to set up IDEs when I was learning. They were always a huge pain to set up, broke in confusing ways, and were generally far more effort than they were worth for the productivity gain (especially when I would try some other language/etc after a short period and go through it all again). Just using a text editor and the compiler was far easier to understand. I still find some aspects of modern IDEs a pain, especially the fact that they either want to be your build system (and are generally crap at that) or lock you into a specific build system. Likewise I haven't found one IDE which can handle the variety of languages I use, so I need to learn 3, even if they all do basically the same thing. I have some hope with the trend towards 'language servers' and also 'build-system servers' (though ATM cmake and Qtcreator are the only example I know of the latter), that this will change and you will be free to choose your combination of build system, development environment, and language with ease.

emodendroket 8y ago
Try IntelliJ if you want something that works with a lot of languages and handles all of them really well.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  Indeed, I use PyCharm as one of my IDEs. I may try CLion for embedded C/C++, but this is still restricted to ARM basically (and CLion supports CMake only, which is the least bad of the C/C++ build systems in common use, but still this is the kind of baggage that comes with an IDE which is not a problem with 'UNIX as IDE').
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I think if you have IntelliJ Ultimate it combines the features of the various IntelliJ spin-offs.
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      Most of them, but CLion is an exception.

jrockway 8y ago

People are not sure what benefit is going to be provided to make up for the inferior text manipulation capabilities. I remember tab completion being a big thing. When I was a new programmer, I really wanted that stuff, for sure. But as I see it now, I find the cases where I don't remember the name of the function I want to call rarer, instead wondering about the undocumented things like "is this method thread-safe?", "who owns the memory for this result object?", "what happens when the connection times out?", "does the error message this function returns contain the name of the file it couldn't open, or do I have to add it myself?" and so on, and the only way to find out is to open the source code of the library I'm using and to read it. Like maybe IDE tooling has evolved to the point where it's just one keystroke to get the right answers to those questions, but I kind of doubt it. So if you want to demean people for not using an IDE, you need to sell it a little better and tell us what we're missing. If it's just tab completion and a shitty build system like IDEs were 10 years ago... not interested but thanks. If there is something that's actually helpful though, would consider.

emodendroket 8y ago
What inferior text manipulation capabilities?
- jrockway 8y ago
  I've always found basic text manipulation lacking in the GUI apps I've used. "Make this comment fit in 100 columns without losing paragraphs" "move the next line up to the end of this line" "go to line 647" "move the cursor to the beginning of this method" etc. My knowledge dates from the "one keystroke to convert this to a JavaBean!" era, though. I'm guessing people don't do that anymore.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I just have IntelliJ configured to use Emacs key bindings; vi ones are also available for people who use the wrong text editor.

VonGallifrey 8y ago

I can't get the features of VIM in an IDE. I CAN get IDE features in VIM. I get syntax highlighting, Automatic Checks, Navigation based on Language structures. I even can integrate my shell and debuggers into VIM, but I don't use do that. I use those usually just as a stand alone tool. VIM and Emacs also have the absolute best git integration I have ever seen. Magit for emacs and Fugitive for Vim are absolutely fantastic. Certainly beats any IDE I have ever used. I can't think of anything that I would like to have from any IDE. MY vim is a much better tool for me then any of the IDEs that I have used in the last 10 Years. I started out with IDEs, because that is what my teachers and mentors used, but once I learned vim the IDEs just seem painfully slow and limited. It is also not the case that I just don't know better. I certainly have used many IDEs in the past. For example I used Visual Studio (Not "VS Code", the proper enterprise VS) for 2 Years.

emodendroket 8y ago
That's false though. You totally can get the features of vim in your IDE.

gkya 8y ago

I run Emacs, in GUI mode. If the language tool have a debugger and/or an interpreter, there is the IDE. In the rare case that there is not a ready made comint implementation for a language, it's easy to do. Completion, well M-/ is good enough. If I don't know a function's name, I need to read the manual to find it and to learn what it does anyways. If I need snippets, it's easy to define them, even without an Emacs minor mode for snippets. Every part of the system is extensible, every keybinding redefinable, and almost every functionality composable. And almost any programming language with more than ten users has an Emacs major mode already made for it. If I really want semantic completion or on-the-fly error reporting and linting (I don't use these out of preference), it's dead simple to integrate and enable. Not only, but I can use the same thing to read my mail, maintain my agenda and create and edit documents. With an IDE, I need another IDE for every language I use. Then I still need a text editor for editing text anyways. Each editor has it's unique method of customisation, and its conventions, its own keybindings, its own behaviour &c, and its own way to store customisations, which are hard to version control, if possible. And substantial customisation that requires custom code is either impossible or very hard to do. Emacs is an IDE for Emacs Lisp. But it's so naturally extensible that it's become an application platform, basically. If all you do for all your career is to write in one language or two, then go with an IDE, I guess. But I'm glad I can use the same program to edit Perl, Python, Ruby, any sort of text, HTML, C, Assembly, Ada, Cobol, JavaScript, CoffeScript, Clojure, ClojureScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Haskel, and so on; and do way more with it than editing source code.

marcosdumay 8y ago

An IDE gives you: 1 - Autocomplete and automatic code, those are the main benefit. Turns out that if your computer can write code for you there is something wrong with either your language or your code. Code generation is a bad replacement for code abstraction. 2 - On the fly error checking. Turns out that vi and emacs do that too. 3 - Coherent access to compiling and debugging tools. As long as you want to use the IDE tools and nothing better, at the price of loss of productivity every time you must reconfigure it, or share an environment with anybody. 4 - In place documentation. Again, vi and emacs do that just fine too. If you are using a language that requires an IDE (that's a big language flaw, but most people don't get to choose), and wants to use a very standard and non-extensible toolset, go ahead and get that IDE. But the people disagreeing with you, it's not they that don't know something.

emodendroket 8y ago
The on-the-fly error and smell checking Emacs does is better than nothing but it's on a different level than a good IDE.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Hum... It marks the failures found by the CLI compilers and linters, exactly like any "good IDE" out there. What IDE are you referring to?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I'm mostly an IntelliJ (and variants: RubyMine, Webstorm, Rider, PhpStorm, etc.) user, although I also use Visual Studio. In my experience, Emacs plugins for many languages often have a feel of working more on looking for matching words in the code rather than "understanding" what the code is doing, let alone suggesting good refactors.
    - marcosdumay 8y ago
      IntelliJ's linters are indeed unusually rich on the deepness and complexity of their rules. But not on the universality, the reason that I consider them unusable, since I just don't like to turn rules off. Anyway, that's a feature of their linters. It just happens to be packaged with their IDE, but it's a completely different tool.

kapv89 8y ago

Want to try the best of both worlds? Right now, you can experience ide-level autocompletion and type-checking in vim if you are working with typescript and have typescript-vim plugin. Just do one decent sized software with typescript+vim. Even intellij ides seem like bloated and inefficient software after that. PS: gvim is fine too. Easier copy to, and paste from clipboard.

VonGallifrey 8y ago
Just to add to that: Vim has ide-level autocompletion and type-checking for many languages and not just typescript.