4 ms·

I always have this weird sensation when people talk about Jetbrains.... I feel like some in some circles, usage of Jetbrains tools is ubiquitous, while in other

I always have this weird sensation when people talk about Jetbrains.... I feel like some in some circles, usage of Jetbrains tools is ubiquitous, while in others it is unheard of. I have been a professional software developer for 15 years, and have never seen the tools in use anywhere I work. But I read things on the internet where people will say things like “well, every ruby developer uses Jetbrain” and seem to not even question this.... weird how circles like this form.

alde 6y ago
Yes, odd. Data point: me and most of my SE friends/coworkers pay for JetBrains IDEs (I was pretty deep into emacs and vim for many years prior to switching).
- geophile 6y ago
  I definitely haven't "switched". In fact, I have a key binding for escaping to emacs to work on the current source. I find that useful because emacs kbd macros are so much less clunky than the Jetbrains equivalent. But yes, Jetbrains products have taken over much of what I used to do in emacs.
  - bo0tzz 6y ago
    > I have a key binding for escaping to emacs to work on the current source. Are you aware that you can set the Jetbrains editor to use emacs key bindings?
    - gimboland 6y ago
      Not OP but they're not saying they want to use emacs keybindings, they're saying they want to use emacs keyboard macros [1], which I agree really are a very handy feature having no equivalent in JetBrains. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Keyboard-Macros.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ke...
      - geophile 6y ago
        Emacs keyboard macros have an inferior equivalent in Intellij (and, I'm assuming, their other products). But also, emacs just somehow feels faster. Maybe keystrokes are marginally faster, maybe it's my expectations, but there it is. I know that Intellij has emacs key bindings, that's not the issue, I'm happy with the Intellij default bindings.
      - geophile 6y ago
        Oh, wait, I just figured out part of it. In Jetbrains products, I am CONSTANTLY hitting Esc to Tab to deal with the helpful predictive suggestion. I find that feature sometimes useful, so I have not turned it off. But it definitely produces a different and maybe slower experience than typing in emacs. Maybe there is a mental mode switch between typing and handling the hint?
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
I suppose it depends on your comfort level in the stack you’re dealing with. I’ve been writing software for 40 years. I’ve been doing Rails since almost the start, and find RubyMine slow and overwrought. However, I had to do some Java work (which I had never done in anger before) and found that IntelliJ really is worlds better than Eclipse. So much so that I paid for it out of my own pocket, even though I knew the project was doomed to failure. I hear good things about Rider, but I have yet to try it, as, after all these years, I’m pretty comfortable with VS. Rails work is EASILY done with a terminal and a text editor; the others not so much.
novok 6y ago
It's really stack dependent. In Java & Android, it's jetbrains IDEs, iOS is Xcode, etc. I think it comes from what that subindustry has converged on the best served dev stack for them. If jetbrains isn't the most used, then it's not the best.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  " If jetbrains isn't the most used, then it's not the best." Oversimplification, when comparing free software and paid software.
  - novok 6y ago
    I was talking about an industry stack. Plenty of open source java software devs use IntelliJ to develop their open source modules and libraries, not to mention there are free editions of their IDEs on top of that.
nikanj 6y ago
It's similarly shocking to encounter entire companies where nobody uses a debugger. Millions in revenue, dozens of programmers, and the level of debugging is still sprinkling printf-statements and desperately perusing source code My hot take: Schools don't touch the practicalities of professional programming enough. Homework is mostly small-time enough that you can keep the entire codebase in your head, and solve issues with printing variables. At least my CS master's degree was very much limited to 1950s level tool use.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thomascgalvin 6y ago
  Colleges generally teach computer science, not programming. They're different arts with different goals. Bootcamps teach ... I don't know, really. I keep seeing an ad to "become a developer in 14 days," and I waver back and forth between amused and angry. I think there's room for a happy medium, some kind of trade school for software development. A curriculum that teaches you practical skills like debugging and clean architecture, and prepares you for an actual job.
- geophile 6y ago
  I found that my use of debugging peaked a few years into my software career, and then fell off rapidly. Debuggers are great for single-threaded code, less useful for multithreaded. And close to useless if your problem spans processes. As the problems I was debugging got more complex, I found that log files became far more useful. The logging is always there (assuming you do a run with the right logging levels selected). You can get a high-level view of what's going on far more easily than in a debugger, which has you rooting around at a very low level. You don't have the phenomenon where you just miss the critical thing while in a debugger, and then you have to laboriously start over. If you miss the critical thing with logging, you turn on more of it and run it again. If you have one of those bugs that occurs extremely rarely, just keep running the code, and turn on logging. When the problem occurs, you have the evidence leading up to it. This assumes you have the right logging there to start with. I put a lot of development time into my logging code -- making it informative, compact, readable, carefully selecting what to log and where and at what logging level. I make sure that I get log rotation right, and then I use some simple scripts to download, consolidate, split and search the log files. "Desperately perusing source code": Yes, you need to read and understand code in order to debug it. You obviously know that, so I'm not sure what "desperately" is meant to convey.

alde 6y ago

Yes, odd. Data point: me and most of my SE friends/coworkers pay for JetBrains IDEs (I was pretty deep into emacs and vim for many years prior to switching).

geophile 6y ago
I definitely haven't "switched". In fact, I have a key binding for escaping to emacs to work on the current source. I find that useful because emacs kbd macros are so much less clunky than the Jetbrains equivalent. But yes, Jetbrains products have taken over much of what I used to do in emacs.
- bo0tzz 6y ago
  > I have a key binding for escaping to emacs to work on the current source. Are you aware that you can set the Jetbrains editor to use emacs key bindings?
  - gimboland 6y ago
    Not OP but they're not saying they want to use emacs keybindings, they're saying they want to use emacs keyboard macros [1], which I agree really are a very handy feature having no equivalent in JetBrains. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Keyboard-Macros.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ke...
    - geophile 6y ago
      Emacs keyboard macros have an inferior equivalent in Intellij (and, I'm assuming, their other products). But also, emacs just somehow feels faster. Maybe keystrokes are marginally faster, maybe it's my expectations, but there it is. I know that Intellij has emacs key bindings, that's not the issue, I'm happy with the Intellij default bindings.
    - geophile 6y ago
      Oh, wait, I just figured out part of it. In Jetbrains products, I am CONSTANTLY hitting Esc to Tab to deal with the helpful predictive suggestion. I find that feature sometimes useful, so I have not turned it off. But it definitely produces a different and maybe slower experience than typing in emacs. Maybe there is a mental mode switch between typing and handling the hint?

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago

I suppose it depends on your comfort level in the stack you’re dealing with. I’ve been writing software for 40 years. I’ve been doing Rails since almost the start, and find RubyMine slow and overwrought. However, I had to do some Java work (which I had never done in anger before) and found that IntelliJ really is worlds better than Eclipse. So much so that I paid for it out of my own pocket, even though I knew the project was doomed to failure. I hear good things about Rider, but I have yet to try it, as, after all these years, I’m pretty comfortable with VS. Rails work is EASILY done with a terminal and a text editor; the others not so much.

novok 6y ago

It's really stack dependent. In Java & Android, it's jetbrains IDEs, iOS is Xcode, etc. I think it comes from what that subindustry has converged on the best served dev stack for them. If jetbrains isn't the most used, then it's not the best.

hutzlibu 6y ago
" If jetbrains isn't the most used, then it's not the best." Oversimplification, when comparing free software and paid software.
- novok 6y ago
  I was talking about an industry stack. Plenty of open source java software devs use IntelliJ to develop their open source modules and libraries, not to mention there are free editions of their IDEs on top of that.

nikanj 6y ago

It's similarly shocking to encounter entire companies where nobody uses a debugger. Millions in revenue, dozens of programmers, and the level of debugging is still sprinkling printf-statements and desperately perusing source code My hot take: Schools don't touch the practicalities of professional programming enough. Homework is mostly small-time enough that you can keep the entire codebase in your head, and solve issues with printing variables. At least my CS master's degree was very much limited to 1950s level tool use.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thomascgalvin 6y ago
Colleges generally teach computer science, not programming. They're different arts with different goals. Bootcamps teach ... I don't know, really. I keep seeing an ad to "become a developer in 14 days," and I waver back and forth between amused and angry. I think there's room for a happy medium, some kind of trade school for software development. A curriculum that teaches you practical skills like debugging and clean architecture, and prepares you for an actual job.
geophile 6y ago
I found that my use of debugging peaked a few years into my software career, and then fell off rapidly. Debuggers are great for single-threaded code, less useful for multithreaded. And close to useless if your problem spans processes. As the problems I was debugging got more complex, I found that log files became far more useful. The logging is always there (assuming you do a run with the right logging levels selected). You can get a high-level view of what's going on far more easily than in a debugger, which has you rooting around at a very low level. You don't have the phenomenon where you just miss the critical thing while in a debugger, and then you have to laboriously start over. If you miss the critical thing with logging, you turn on more of it and run it again. If you have one of those bugs that occurs extremely rarely, just keep running the code, and turn on logging. When the problem occurs, you have the evidence leading up to it. This assumes you have the right logging there to start with. I put a lot of development time into my logging code -- making it informative, compact, readable, carefully selecting what to log and where and at what logging level. I make sure that I get log rotation right, and then I use some simple scripts to download, consolidate, split and search the log files. "Desperately perusing source code": Yes, you need to read and understand code in order to debug it. You obviously know that, so I'm not sure what "desperately" is meant to convey.