3 ms·

Looking at the repo, it doesn't look very "light", and it's difficult to think about an IDE that is possibly light, especially when it supports C++/php/rust/nod

by jokoon 3y ago

Looking at the repo, it doesn't look very "light", and it's difficult to think about an IDE that is possibly light, especially when it supports C++/php/rust/nodejs. Is it possible to know what companies use it? It has 80 contributors on github, but 121 issues for such a large seems a bit low. Not trying to ruin the mood, as it seems to use nice tech like a language server, ctags, etc. Personally I only like IDE because it's easier to debug with them, but they're often just big monsters that are difficult to use or make sense of, and they often require a fast computer. I prefer the "light minimal software" approach, where I just write things I need without going too big.

rzwitserloot 3y ago
The author started out making a library that does auto-complete based on SQLite table definitions, which is where the etymology of the 'lite' in 'CodeLite' comes from. Not 'lite' as in: "This IDE is lightweight". Still a weird and probably unfortunate name. But now you know. > and they often require a fast computer. About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten. > difficult to use or make sense of Writing software is inherently complicated, and many complicated tasks are significantly helped with the use of complex tools that require a significant investment to learn to use properly. The answer isn't to resort to building tables using a simple handcrafted hammer and a manual saw because those things are 'easy to understand'. > I prefer the "light minimal software" approach, where I just write things I need without going too big. To channel Einstein a bit - tools should be as minimal as possible but not _more_ minimal. Which mostly just kicks the can down the road: I don't think it's useful or correct to claim that IDE fans "just like pointless complexity and fail to appreciate the elegance of simple tools". They just defined "minimal" differently from you.
- jokoon 3y ago
  > About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten. I really disagree here. Building C++ software with visual studio takes ages, its auto completion feature breaks VERY OFTEN, and after enabling C++20 for a Qt project, compilation times were 3 times longer.

by jokoon 3y ago

rzwitserloot 3y ago

The author started out making a library that does auto-complete based on SQLite table definitions, which is where the etymology of the 'lite' in 'CodeLite' comes from. Not 'lite' as in: "This IDE is lightweight". Still a weird and probably unfortunate name. But now you know. > and they often require a fast computer. About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten. > difficult to use or make sense of Writing software is inherently complicated, and many complicated tasks are significantly helped with the use of complex tools that require a significant investment to learn to use properly. The answer isn't to resort to building tables using a simple handcrafted hammer and a manual saw because those things are 'easy to understand'. > I prefer the "light minimal software" approach, where I just write things I need without going too big. To channel Einstein a bit - tools should be as minimal as possible but not _more_ minimal. Which mostly just kicks the can down the road: I don't think it's useful or correct to claim that IDE fans "just like pointless complexity and fail to appreciate the elegance of simple tools". They just defined "minimal" differently from you.

jokoon 3y ago
> About 10 years ago this argument ceased to hold much relevance. Or, at least, it did for all IDEs I've investigated. The complexity of editing a sack of code, CPU-wise, hasn't changed all that much, and 10 years has had quite the impact on how cheap 'hardware that can run IDEs without breaking a sweat' has gotten. I really disagree here. Building C++ software with visual studio takes ages, its auto completion feature breaks VERY OFTEN, and after enabling C++20 for a Qt project, compilation times were 3 times longer.