3 ms·

> Some Projects with 40000+ files might take >5 minutes to load. I would buy a more powerful computer. I have a project with 34908 files and IntelliJ doesn't c

> Some Projects with 40000+ files might take >5 minutes to load. I would buy a more powerful computer. I have a project with 34908 files and IntelliJ doesn't care. Not quite 40_000+ files but still a lot :). Also with IntelliJ I make fewer mistakes. This "thing" is just more intelligent than I am. Add "SonarLint" to the game and I sometimes don't even know _why_ I am wrong :P. Also I think "Avoid IDE lock-in of your project" is the wrong subtitle for the following paragraph. You would have the same problems by using just a text editor. Rd6n6 mentioned refactoring. Do that in an editor and you will go crazy after a while :). I love and hate my IDE :).

mcguire 5y ago
Pro tip from an ex-performance guy: Allowing your developers to use machines more powerful than your minimum targeted device is a very good way to produce software that will not run on your maximum targeted device.
- h4x0r12345 5y ago
  The minimum targeted device is sometimes not even capable of running the development environment. Doom was developed on $10k NeXT workstations. Good luck trying to develop Doom on a 386.
habibur 5y ago
You need an IDE for Java. That language is built for IDE. The requirement is a little bit less for some other popular languages.
- hota_mazi 5y ago
  Any statically typed language benefits greatly from an IDE, if only for the automatic refactoring. Dynamically typed languages can hardly be automatically refactored.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I don't like PyCharm, but it can certainly refactor Python programs. What are you talking about?
    - hota_mazi 5y ago
      Not automatically. The absence of type annotations means a human needs to double check the refactoring. https://www.beust.com/weblog/2021/06/20/refactoring-a-dynamically-typed-language-do-it-safely-or-automatically-but-not-both/ https://www.beust.com/weblog/2021/06/20/refactoring-a-dynami...
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > You might think it’s obvious that you need to rename both A.f and B.f, but that’s just because this snippet is trivial. In the general case, yes – but that's like saying “no termination analysis is possible because of the halting problem”. The IDE can safely refactor, unsafely attempt a refactor, and warn when it does the latter rather than the former. Though I didn't know PyCharm didn't do that! That's dangerous; thanks for the warning.

mcguire 5y ago

Pro tip from an ex-performance guy: Allowing your developers to use machines more powerful than your minimum targeted device is a very good way to produce software that will not run on your maximum targeted device.

h4x0r12345 5y ago
The minimum targeted device is sometimes not even capable of running the development environment. Doom was developed on $10k NeXT workstations. Good luck trying to develop Doom on a 386.

habibur 5y ago

You need an IDE for Java. That language is built for IDE. The requirement is a little bit less for some other popular languages.

hota_mazi 5y ago
Any statically typed language benefits greatly from an IDE, if only for the automatic refactoring. Dynamically typed languages can hardly be automatically refactored.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I don't like PyCharm, but it can certainly refactor Python programs. What are you talking about?
  - hota_mazi 5y ago
    Not automatically. The absence of type annotations means a human needs to double check the refactoring. https://www.beust.com/weblog/2021/06/20/refactoring-a-dynamically-typed-language-do-it-safely-or-automatically-but-not-both/ https://www.beust.com/weblog/2021/06/20/refactoring-a-dynami...
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      > You might think it’s obvious that you need to rename both A.f and B.f, but that’s just because this snippet is trivial. In the general case, yes – but that's like saying “no termination analysis is possible because of the halting problem”. The IDE can safely refactor, unsafely attempt a refactor, and warn when it does the latter rather than the former. Though I didn't know PyCharm didn't do that! That's dangerous; thanks for the warning.