3 ms·
My experience is much more like the one described by the_af . IntelliJ is OK for most Scala code, but it regularly makes a mess of anything complicated. So muc
by timv 12y ago
My experience is much more like the one described by the_af .
IntelliJ is OK for most Scala code, but it regularly makes a mess of anything complicated. So much so that, in our office, the first answer to "why doesn't this code compile" is "Does it really not compile, or is IntelliJ being dumb again?" It's usually the latter.
I think it depends on what style of Scala you use. Anything involving slick or spray tends to confuse IntelliJ. Its better in 14, but it's still not good.
The refactoring is bad enough that I hardly ever bother using it. It gets simple things mostly right, but doing that by hand is just as easy. It can't do the more useful things like method signature changes.
The tooling support for Scala is improving, but its at about 10 years behind Java tooling.
- eropple 12y agoHuh, I use Slick quite a lot and never have trouble. Never used Spray. I guess I don't write terribly complex stuff (I really do use Scala largely as I'd use a JVM C#, I suppose) in general, though. About all I find myself using refactoring tools with for Java is renaming, honestly, so I guess I'm more likely to have my itches scratched by the current state of tooling. Thanks for the explanation, though!
- the_af 12y agoI don't write complex Scala code either. Simple renaming doesn't reliably work for me on Kepler-based Scala IDE for Ubuntu :( This means sometimes it will fail to rename in every call site, and sometimes it will introduce random symbols.
- eropple 12y agoI've never found ScalaIDE worth the time of day--I wrote Scala in Vim before IDEA 11. There, simple renames work fine. =)