4 ms·

There are some things that I feel that IDEs do better than a terminal or editor: - Running tests (test running requires juggling a hierarchy of tests, their re

There are some things that I feel that IDEs do better than a terminal or editor: - Running tests (test running requires juggling a hierarchy of tests, their results, their declarations, plus with an IDE you can run tests directly from the test declaration) - Lint / Static analysis (you get the warnings automatically as you code) - Debugging (it's easier to watch several things at once, easier to inspect a complex object, you can inspect through a tooltip when hovering over a variable on the code) I really don't care about how anyone prefers to work, but I fear that anti-IDE people in many cases don't even debug (except by printing), lint or test... which I DO care about, if I have to work with them. These things are about being a responsible coder. I could also add that the "Local history" feature of Jetbrains IDEs can save code from accidental deletion, which is another thing that goes beyond personal preferences.

Lio 5y ago
Seems like the features you’ve mentioned are already available in most editors or through external tools such as test runners/watchers or debuggers. For example you mention the “local history” feature of Jetbrains IDEs as being essential. Vim, and I think Emacs, have had that built in for more than 20 years in the form of backed up undo trees. There are still somethings IDEs can do that editors can’t e.g. deep static analysis, but with LSP support that set is reducing all the time.
- elondaits 5y ago
  The "local history" feature is not just undo... it can also recover deleted files. I could be wrong but I assume vi doesn't do that. I'd also argue that it's friendlier (surely not faster) to navigate if you need to find the exact point at which you made your mistake. I know that some editors have a lot of advanced features / plugins for coding. I still think a lot of people prefer editors over IDEs because they don't debug, or lint, or test... not because they're terminal wizards that are slowed down by any sort of GUI.
bastardoperator 5y ago
I have no need to do any of this locally outside of debugging when I can commit/push early/often and get the same feedback from my CI/CD process. It also solves the "local history" problem because my code lives on a remote. If anything what you're describing sounds like a lack of standardization or gates in order for code to reach production. That's an engineering problem, not an IDE vs text editor issue.
- elondaits 5y ago
  My point was that an IDE runs the static analysis in the background and gives feedback as soon as you type, in the editor itself, instead of having a separate step. Same with the test... it's easier to react to the test result, check what's failing, re-run the test directly from the IDE. This would be in addition to the CI/CD... to aid the coder, not just to secure the integrity of the codebase.

Lio 5y ago

Seems like the features you’ve mentioned are already available in most editors or through external tools such as test runners/watchers or debuggers. For example you mention the “local history” feature of Jetbrains IDEs as being essential. Vim, and I think Emacs, have had that built in for more than 20 years in the form of backed up undo trees. There are still somethings IDEs can do that editors can’t e.g. deep static analysis, but with LSP support that set is reducing all the time.

elondaits 5y ago
The "local history" feature is not just undo... it can also recover deleted files. I could be wrong but I assume vi doesn't do that. I'd also argue that it's friendlier (surely not faster) to navigate if you need to find the exact point at which you made your mistake. I know that some editors have a lot of advanced features / plugins for coding. I still think a lot of people prefer editors over IDEs because they don't debug, or lint, or test... not because they're terminal wizards that are slowed down by any sort of GUI.

bastardoperator 5y ago

I have no need to do any of this locally outside of debugging when I can commit/push early/often and get the same feedback from my CI/CD process. It also solves the "local history" problem because my code lives on a remote. If anything what you're describing sounds like a lack of standardization or gates in order for code to reach production. That's an engineering problem, not an IDE vs text editor issue.

elondaits 5y ago
My point was that an IDE runs the static analysis in the background and gives feedback as soon as you type, in the editor itself, instead of having a separate step. Same with the test... it's easier to react to the test result, check what's failing, re-run the test directly from the IDE. This would be in addition to the CI/CD... to aid the coder, not just to secure the integrity of the codebase.