4 ms·
I find it really short sighted to say the IDE should never destroy code. Yes in an ideal world. However we have VCS to ensure our code is never lost. Before and
by nextw33k 13y ago
I find it really short sighted to say the IDE should never destroy code. Yes in an ideal world. However we have VCS to ensure our code is never lost. Before and after any refactoring you should be checking in.
If the IDE got it wrong I'd revert and submit a bug report, no biggie.
I want my IDE to be stable, fast and do as much for me as possible.
- pmr_ 13y agoI think the problem is refactored code that still compiles but fails in subtle ways now. Of course testing should catch that, but we have to accept that the reality of most testsuites is very different from the ideal.
- flipchart 13y agoI'm constantly refactoring my code. Yes, not all of them are solution-wide changes, but it would be a huge drain on productivity to check in my code between each refactor. I need to be able to trust my IDE that it will refactor properly and not destroy my code
- CraigJPerry 13y agoProbably an impedance mismatch here, i think the parent is thinking in terms of git (or a.n. other DVCS) where constantly making atomic commits is very natural. I suspect from what you're saying you're using something else. E.g. day to day i use subversion. It's possible to adopt this workflow in subversion but it definitely takes more effort on my part.