10 ms·

It's almost professional negligence. I had the same situation 15+ years ago when Eclipse was coming out and Java was on the rise. We really didn't know Java a

It's almost professional negligence. I had the same situation 15+ years ago when Eclipse was coming out and Java was on the rise. We really didn't know Java all that well and so Eclipse's auto-completion and doc popups were a godsend. The guy sitting there with Vi(m) was bogging down beyond belief. It got to the point, where we had to sit him down and tell him he needs to use the right tool for the job or get lost. It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo".

NhanH 11y ago
Emacs + slime for Common lisp and tuareg mode for ocaml can do everything that my intellij can do in Java. Then I can extend Emacs to cast a spell, hex vim users and spam HN every time I fixed a bug -- even with plug-ins system I suspect intellij isn't that extensible.
mikerichards 11y ago
to Nhanh. Emacs, Slime and Common Lisp is something that I would give an exception to. The major productivity I give to that combo is the ability to change the code on the fly while debugging, especially Common Lisp's continue from exception mechanism. Smalltalk environments have had this ability forever. I just imagine how much more productive I could be if in Visual Studio I could edit-n-continue on everything...even if my code wasn't in a successful compilation state. Java has this and Jrebel has this on steroids, but I want to be able to edit-n-continue even if my compilation state is broken. Just throw an exception when it fails because of bad state.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Common Lisps exception mechanism is indeed out of this world, but that isn't something that has been implemented in any other language that I know of (not even Clojure) and you have to pay a fortune to get a CL system that works cross-platform with things like threading or a FI that allows lisp callbacks from C code. Java has supported both since forever (and its java.util.concurrent namespace means any old Java programmer has access to all sorts of really advanced non-blocking data structures, including a ConcurrentSkipListMap and an AtomicInteger) and for most people, for almost all tasks, that makes Java better. And for Java you need an IDE.
  - lispm 11y ago
    > pay a fortune to get a CL system that works cross-platform with things like threading or a FI that allows lisp callbacks from C code like 'zero'. ;-) Use Clozure CL: http://ccl.clozure.com http://ccl.clozure.com > Clozure CL also provides a mechanism for defining callbacks: lisp functions which can be called from foreign code. > Clozure CL provides facilities which enable multiple threads of execution Runs on Linux / Windows / Mac OS X and others.
duaneb 11y ago
> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". I think it's mostly that the current state of "intelligent, realtime code analysis" is so terrible that it can be replaced with "rename" and "find references of". I.e. ctags.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Then you have no idea about the current state of intelligent, realtime code analysis. Any old Java IDE should be able to rename length to size on an interface and have all the classes that implement that interface update the name, then have all the places that calls it update to use the new name. Try that with rename and you will quickly run into trouble, unless you have only one class that has a method called length.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    This is still a rename operation. I have difficulty understanding how this would require an IDE for anything but the more complex codebases, and even then, I would much prefer a discrete code server. Refactoring is still in its infancy. A), it's not entirely possible on C/C++ because of macros. B), they are serialized extremely poorly to diffs, so any boon from refactoring is sidestepped by SCM. C), most of the refactoring done by programmers cannot be done automagically by the IDE (e.g. type signature changes are painful as hell). D), 95% of changes are supported by ctags-like functionality; i.e., a basic identifier index, and re-compiling to fix the bugs. Given this, I'm pretty sure IDEs have made a lot of progress towards renaming and looking up references really well, but not a lot of progress towards actually being useful. That said, I do find that when the language supports it, a precise tool to find usages and/or rename is worth its wait in gold. But this is hardly anything near "intelligent, realtime code analysis". Pretty sure that's referring to typeahead, which again is a step removed from a source code index and can be faked by using a regular expression to extract identifiers to suggest.
    - serge2k 11y ago
tormeh 11y ago
I think it's that if you use Vim and Emacs properly with the right extensions, then they can be pretty amazing, but if you're just cargo culting and use Vim just to say you use Vim, then it won't work.
rdtsc 11y ago
> where we had to sit him down and tell him he needs to use the right tool for the job or get lost. One can look at it the other way. If your language needs a million lines of IDE code to function and for programmers to be productive with it, maybe it is time to sit down and tell that language to "get lost".
- tomjen3 11y ago
  If you are more productive with a million lines of IDE code backing you up + that language than you would be in Emacs with C++, why would you tell that language to get lost?
- shiggerino 11y ago
  That's pure nonsense. There is nothing that prevents languages like Lisp or Smalltalk from being used with a console editor and the compile-pray-debug cycle, but that's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot. This is true of any language, but for some reason there's a large mass of developers of those other languages that see shitty tools and incomplete programs (remember kids, high LOC count means bloat!) as some kind of virtue.
atilaneves 11y ago
I use Emacs with intelligent realtime code analysis. Anybody who doesn't use the best Emacs packages for the languages they write is doing it wrong.
- kzhahou 11y ago
  Which packages, and what languages do you write in? For the life of me, I've never been able to get any advanced code stuff to work. Auto-complete etc.
  - maheart 11y ago
    Not OP, but I use emacs + jedi[1] for Python development. In addition to code completion, having documentation available to you as you type, and easily navigating code (e.g. jump to definition), you also have all the usual emacs goodies (unlimited undo/redo, easily defining keyboard macros, writing functions for emacs and binding them to keys). [1] http://tkf.github.io/emacs-jedi/latest/ http://tkf.github.io/emacs-jedi/latest/
  - to3m 11y ago
    I've had reasonable success with company mode and rtags for C/C++. Fairly straightforward to set up and reasonably accurate. I'd hesitate to call it streets ahead of even Xcode, let alone Visual Studio, but it does roughly what you'd hope for, without too much hassle. Definitely worth turning off company mode's complete-as-you type functionality, though... After 9 years of using emacs, I still don't find it unambiguously better than Visual Studio for working with C/C++. The text editing is a lot better in emacs, but the code browsing/completion is not - and for large, multi-person projects I've always found the code browsing/completion functionality more important. You can always load files into emacs for one-off operations if you need to do something in particular.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    The Go stuff works pretty well. I never needed it in Python, because Python libraries are so clean and orthogonal.
  - atilaneves 11y ago
srj 11y ago
I guess I can't tell if this post is a troll or not. :) Someone not getting their job done is a problem. Someone using vim as their editor is not. I could understand giving that feedback ("try an IDE") but telling them their job is contingent on it is probably missing the point. Most of the people I work with seem to use vim/emacs, and it doesn't appear to be for "machismo" reasons. It's likely just what they're used to.
- throw_away 11y ago
  I was that guy & never switched to an IDE because I was really good at tearing through text with the vim model. intellij's vim plugin (ideavim) is top notch. Just having auto completion, find definition, find file and rename are worth the price of admission.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  >Someone not getting their job done is a problem. Someone using vim as their editor is not. The best programmers I work with use emacs or vim and are good enough to keep up even though most others use intelliJ ides, but it is a handicap, they are just good enough to overcome it. I have no doubt they would be even better in a good IDE.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > I have no doubt they would be even better in a good IDE. Do you really think the best programmers spend enough time refactoring for the use of an IDE to help?
    - dempseye 11y ago
      Is refactoring a bad thing now?
      - riquito 11y ago
        >> Do you really think the best programmers spend enough time refactoring for the use of an IDE to help? > Is refactoring a bad thing now? It isn't, he just intended that the best programmers refactor less (since they are the best they must get things right or better predict the future more often then the others).
hyperpallium 11y ago
> We really didn't know Java all that well I think you hit the nail on the head, IDE's are an excellent choice for when you don't know what you're doing. :p Seriously though, auto popups of docs are very helpful for huge libraries and new codebases. I wrote a little script for that.
pjmlp 11y ago
> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". I feel the same. Having been brought up with all Borland products, Smalltalk Visual Works and Oberon, I really cannot grasp they keep themselves in a UNIX V7 world, instead of a Xerox PARC one. And I did use Emacs several years, while deeply missing Borland tooling, as that was the best thing one could look for in UNIX back then (VIM did not exist just VI). However in 2015, there are so many nice IDEs also available for UNIX...
jwr 11y ago
> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". Oh, that's amusing, and rather misinformed. Emacs in particular, when programming Common Lisp or Clojure, has a really impressive environment that Java IDEs can only aspire to (in part, that's an unfair comparison, because CL and Clojure are well suited to interactive programming and Java isn't). I would be more careful with strong words like "professional negligence" or "hardcore, programmer machismo".
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  In 2015, do you think most people are using emacs or vim to work with Java or with a Lisp? I think this point stands for the vast, vast majority of people using emacs and vim.
hendzen 11y ago
I work on a large C++ codebase in emacs. I find emacs keybindings and extensibility (via elisp) far superior to any IDE - and I have tried Eclipse, CLion (IDEA for C++), Code/Blocks and Netbeans. For C/C++ specifically, the state of code analysis in emacs has greatly improved due to clang. For example, I get full auto-complete (including for variables declared 'auto') in emacs with irony-mode [0] for code completion, flycheck-irony [1] for on-the-fly syntax checking, and I get jump to definition/find references/etc via clang-ctags [2]. I assume vim has similar extensions. [0] - https://github.com/Sarcasm/irony-mode https://github.com/Sarcasm/irony-mode [1] - https://github.com/Sarcasm/flycheck-irony https://github.com/Sarcasm/flycheck-irony [2] - https://github.com/drothlis/clang-ctags https://github.com/drothlis/clang-ctags
- serge2k 11y ago
  I find C++ much easier to write in Sublime (or vim) vs Java.
- thawkins 11y ago
  CLion is only a few months old and can be considered to be a 1.0 release, its already growing more and more capability on each minor update. I use PhpStorm, cLion and PyCharm, and im happy to pay for them, the editor itself is very high quality and having common tools across all the 3 languages i use is great. If only they did a "golang" IDE.
  - dlsniper 11y ago
    You can use the Go plugin for almost any IDE based on the IntelliJ Platform, that includes CLion and Android Studio. And the best of all, it's free. Give it a try by installing it: https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo"." What is amazing is that in 2015 there is people out there that believes Vim or Emacs have no intelligent, realtime analysis. In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. You can use elisp inside emacs and automate EVERYTHING running circles around anything commercial. I have a company making software and I know. With the proper training those tools are incredible.
- eru 11y ago
  Emacs is scriptable, but elisp is probably the worst lisp in widespread use.
- lemming 11y ago
  In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. I develop Cursive, an IDE based on IntelliJ for Clojure code. Its completion and navigation are categorically better than Emacs's, even for a language that supposedly has one of the best levels of support under Emacs. To say that Emacs is automatically better than everything else is pure Stockholm syndrome.
  - socksy 11y ago
    I have nothing against Cursive, and in fact, have been eying it from afar. But this kind of comment is just needlessly dismissive with little in the way of substance, as far as I can tell. Would you like to expand on what these features that Cursive has that are "Categorically better" than Emacs'? I'm not saying there isn't any, and certainly I've used better refactoring tools than https://github.com/clojure-emacs/clj-refactor.el https://github.com/clojure-emacs/clj-refactor.el in other languages. But what on earth is wrong with the navigation? The main advantage I've seen form a colleague is the highlighting automatically of usages, but I'm pretty sure I can set that up in Emacs too.
eru 11y ago
You can get these things as plugins for Vim and Emacs, too.
kriro 11y ago
From hat I've seen I'll disagree. The people that use vim efficiently [emacs users just substitute emacs] don't just use vim. They are also very efficient using the surrounding (Unixoid) environment. Specifically file searching...I'm not sure IDEs have an edge there. These days there's also things like eclim. I don't know it seems like vim style editing is still the best way to get around the codebase and actually work with the text but IDEs have great integration to work with the code. So I think the optimal solution is a "best of both worlds" approach which means a vim-plugin for the IDE or an IDEfeatures-plugin for vim. I see the former setup a lot. --- and my wild guess is that emacs actually has great code integration for Lisps. I don't know what the state of the art Lisp IDE is but I'd be shocked if it was better than emacs.
benihana 11y ago
>It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". You found me out! My preferred environment set up is nothing more than machismo directed at you, a complete stranger. If only I'd had the humility to try an IDE, I could have been enlightened My eyes hurt from rolling them so hard at your comment.
wtbob 11y ago
Do you realise that emacs supports 'intelligent, realtime code analysis'? I program in Go, and I have auto-completion and documentation. Emacs is more extensible, and more easily extensible, than Eclipse. Yes, an IDE is pretty nice for a particular kind of horrible enterprise coding: the sort where no-one understands the system, where everything's horribly over-architected and where, yes, ultra-fast auto-completion is necessary to get anything done. But…why live like that? There're interesting problems and fun environments where one doesn't need to live in that kind of hell. emacs can handle that, but you have to start asking yourself if it even makes sense to do. A lot of times, those IDEs are just managing spurious complexity, not actually helping build something great.
mschaef 11y ago
It's more than a little ironic that you claim Emacs/vim users use their tool out of 'harcdore, programmer machismo', and you're doing basically the same thing in the opposite direction by accusing them of being unprofessional. For me, I've used both IDE's and plain ordinary text editors for close to 30 years (the first IDE being QuickBasic 4), and tend to find that IDE's get in the way more often than not. My personal software designs tend to use single components for single functions, so the additional complexities of an IDE's second compiler, second build tool, second VCS front end are less than appealing to me. That said, I've gotten a lot of use in the last 24 hours out of code refactoring the the IntelliJ debugger, so I think the honest answer is to use both approaches if you like.

NhanH 11y ago

Emacs + slime for Common lisp and tuareg mode for ocaml can do everything that my intellij can do in Java. Then I can extend Emacs to cast a spell, hex vim users and spam HN every time I fixed a bug -- even with plug-ins system I suspect intellij isn't that extensible.

mikerichards 11y ago

to Nhanh. Emacs, Slime and Common Lisp is something that I would give an exception to. The major productivity I give to that combo is the ability to change the code on the fly while debugging, especially Common Lisp's continue from exception mechanism. Smalltalk environments have had this ability forever. I just imagine how much more productive I could be if in Visual Studio I could edit-n-continue on everything...even if my code wasn't in a successful compilation state. Java has this and Jrebel has this on steroids, but I want to be able to edit-n-continue even if my compilation state is broken. Just throw an exception when it fails because of bad state.

tomjen3 11y ago
Common Lisps exception mechanism is indeed out of this world, but that isn't something that has been implemented in any other language that I know of (not even Clojure) and you have to pay a fortune to get a CL system that works cross-platform with things like threading or a FI that allows lisp callbacks from C code. Java has supported both since forever (and its java.util.concurrent namespace means any old Java programmer has access to all sorts of really advanced non-blocking data structures, including a ConcurrentSkipListMap and an AtomicInteger) and for most people, for almost all tasks, that makes Java better. And for Java you need an IDE.
- lispm 11y ago
  > pay a fortune to get a CL system that works cross-platform with things like threading or a FI that allows lisp callbacks from C code like 'zero'. ;-) Use Clozure CL: http://ccl.clozure.com http://ccl.clozure.com > Clozure CL also provides a mechanism for defining callbacks: lisp functions which can be called from foreign code. > Clozure CL provides facilities which enable multiple threads of execution Runs on Linux / Windows / Mac OS X and others.

duaneb 11y ago

> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". I think it's mostly that the current state of "intelligent, realtime code analysis" is so terrible that it can be replaced with "rename" and "find references of". I.e. ctags.

tomjen3 11y ago
Then you have no idea about the current state of intelligent, realtime code analysis. Any old Java IDE should be able to rename length to size on an interface and have all the classes that implement that interface update the name, then have all the places that calls it update to use the new name. Try that with rename and you will quickly run into trouble, unless you have only one class that has a method called length.
- duaneb 11y ago
  This is still a rename operation. I have difficulty understanding how this would require an IDE for anything but the more complex codebases, and even then, I would much prefer a discrete code server. Refactoring is still in its infancy. A), it's not entirely possible on C/C++ because of macros. B), they are serialized extremely poorly to diffs, so any boon from refactoring is sidestepped by SCM. C), most of the refactoring done by programmers cannot be done automagically by the IDE (e.g. type signature changes are painful as hell). D), 95% of changes are supported by ctags-like functionality; i.e., a basic identifier index, and re-compiling to fix the bugs. Given this, I'm pretty sure IDEs have made a lot of progress towards renaming and looking up references really well, but not a lot of progress towards actually being useful. That said, I do find that when the language supports it, a precise tool to find usages and/or rename is worth its wait in gold. But this is hardly anything near "intelligent, realtime code analysis". Pretty sure that's referring to typeahead, which again is a step removed from a source code index and can be faked by using a regular expression to extract identifiers to suggest.
  - serge2k 11y ago

tormeh 11y ago

I think it's that if you use Vim and Emacs properly with the right extensions, then they can be pretty amazing, but if you're just cargo culting and use Vim just to say you use Vim, then it won't work.

rdtsc 11y ago

> where we had to sit him down and tell him he needs to use the right tool for the job or get lost. One can look at it the other way. If your language needs a million lines of IDE code to function and for programmers to be productive with it, maybe it is time to sit down and tell that language to "get lost".

tomjen3 11y ago
If you are more productive with a million lines of IDE code backing you up + that language than you would be in Emacs with C++, why would you tell that language to get lost?
shiggerino 11y ago
That's pure nonsense. There is nothing that prevents languages like Lisp or Smalltalk from being used with a console editor and the compile-pray-debug cycle, but that's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot. This is true of any language, but for some reason there's a large mass of developers of those other languages that see shitty tools and incomplete programs (remember kids, high LOC count means bloat!) as some kind of virtue.

atilaneves 11y ago

I use Emacs with intelligent realtime code analysis. Anybody who doesn't use the best Emacs packages for the languages they write is doing it wrong.

kzhahou 11y ago
Which packages, and what languages do you write in? For the life of me, I've never been able to get any advanced code stuff to work. Auto-complete etc.
- maheart 11y ago
  Not OP, but I use emacs + jedi[1] for Python development. In addition to code completion, having documentation available to you as you type, and easily navigating code (e.g. jump to definition), you also have all the usual emacs goodies (unlimited undo/redo, easily defining keyboard macros, writing functions for emacs and binding them to keys). [1] http://tkf.github.io/emacs-jedi/latest/ http://tkf.github.io/emacs-jedi/latest/
- to3m 11y ago
  I've had reasonable success with company mode and rtags for C/C++. Fairly straightforward to set up and reasonably accurate. I'd hesitate to call it streets ahead of even Xcode, let alone Visual Studio, but it does roughly what you'd hope for, without too much hassle. Definitely worth turning off company mode's complete-as-you type functionality, though... After 9 years of using emacs, I still don't find it unambiguously better than Visual Studio for working with C/C++. The text editing is a lot better in emacs, but the code browsing/completion is not - and for large, multi-person projects I've always found the code browsing/completion functionality more important. You can always load files into emacs for one-off operations if you need to do something in particular.
- wtbob 11y ago
  The Go stuff works pretty well. I never needed it in Python, because Python libraries are so clean and orthogonal.
- atilaneves 11y ago

srj 11y ago

I guess I can't tell if this post is a troll or not. :) Someone not getting their job done is a problem. Someone using vim as their editor is not. I could understand giving that feedback ("try an IDE") but telling them their job is contingent on it is probably missing the point. Most of the people I work with seem to use vim/emacs, and it doesn't appear to be for "machismo" reasons. It's likely just what they're used to.

throw_away 11y ago
I was that guy & never switched to an IDE because I was really good at tearing through text with the vim model. intellij's vim plugin (ideavim) is top notch. Just having auto completion, find definition, find file and rename are worth the price of admission.
tomjen3 11y ago
>Someone not getting their job done is a problem. Someone using vim as their editor is not. The best programmers I work with use emacs or vim and are good enough to keep up even though most others use intelliJ ides, but it is a handicap, they are just good enough to overcome it. I have no doubt they would be even better in a good IDE.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > I have no doubt they would be even better in a good IDE. Do you really think the best programmers spend enough time refactoring for the use of an IDE to help?
  - dempseye 11y ago
    Is refactoring a bad thing now?
    - riquito 11y ago
      >> Do you really think the best programmers spend enough time refactoring for the use of an IDE to help? > Is refactoring a bad thing now? It isn't, he just intended that the best programmers refactor less (since they are the best they must get things right or better predict the future more often then the others).

hyperpallium 11y ago

> We really didn't know Java all that well I think you hit the nail on the head, IDE's are an excellent choice for when you don't know what you're doing. :p Seriously though, auto popups of docs are very helpful for huge libraries and new codebases. I wrote a little script for that.

pjmlp 11y ago

> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". I feel the same. Having been brought up with all Borland products, Smalltalk Visual Works and Oberon, I really cannot grasp they keep themselves in a UNIX V7 world, instead of a Xerox PARC one. And I did use Emacs several years, while deeply missing Borland tooling, as that was the best thing one could look for in UNIX back then (VIM did not exist just VI). However in 2015, there are so many nice IDEs also available for UNIX...

jwr 11y ago

> It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". Oh, that's amusing, and rather misinformed. Emacs in particular, when programming Common Lisp or Clojure, has a really impressive environment that Java IDEs can only aspire to (in part, that's an unfair comparison, because CL and Clojure are well suited to interactive programming and Java isn't). I would be more careful with strong words like "professional negligence" or "hardcore, programmer machismo".

throwawaykf05 11y ago
In 2015, do you think most people are using emacs or vim to work with Java or with a Lisp? I think this point stands for the vast, vast majority of people using emacs and vim.

hendzen 11y ago

I work on a large C++ codebase in emacs. I find emacs keybindings and extensibility (via elisp) far superior to any IDE - and I have tried Eclipse, CLion (IDEA for C++), Code/Blocks and Netbeans. For C/C++ specifically, the state of code analysis in emacs has greatly improved due to clang. For example, I get full auto-complete (including for variables declared 'auto') in emacs with irony-mode [0] for code completion, flycheck-irony [1] for on-the-fly syntax checking, and I get jump to definition/find references/etc via clang-ctags [2]. I assume vim has similar extensions. [0] - https://github.com/Sarcasm/irony-mode https://github.com/Sarcasm/irony-mode [1] - https://github.com/Sarcasm/flycheck-irony https://github.com/Sarcasm/flycheck-irony [2] - https://github.com/drothlis/clang-ctags https://github.com/drothlis/clang-ctags

serge2k 11y ago
I find C++ much easier to write in Sublime (or vim) vs Java.
thawkins 11y ago
CLion is only a few months old and can be considered to be a 1.0 release, its already growing more and more capability on each minor update. I use PhpStorm, cLion and PyCharm, and im happy to pay for them, the editor itself is very high quality and having common tools across all the 3 languages i use is great. If only they did a "golang" IDE.
- dlsniper 11y ago
  You can use the Go plugin for almost any IDE based on the IntelliJ Platform, that includes CLion and Android Studio. And the best of all, it's free. Give it a try by installing it: https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin

Htsthbjig 11y ago

"It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo"." What is amazing is that in 2015 there is people out there that believes Vim or Emacs have no intelligent, realtime analysis. In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. You can use elisp inside emacs and automate EVERYTHING running circles around anything commercial. I have a company making software and I know. With the proper training those tools are incredible.

eru 11y ago
Emacs is scriptable, but elisp is probably the worst lisp in widespread use.
lemming 11y ago
In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. I develop Cursive, an IDE based on IntelliJ for Clojure code. Its completion and navigation are categorically better than Emacs's, even for a language that supposedly has one of the best levels of support under Emacs. To say that Emacs is automatically better than everything else is pure Stockholm syndrome.
- socksy 11y ago
  I have nothing against Cursive, and in fact, have been eying it from afar. But this kind of comment is just needlessly dismissive with little in the way of substance, as far as I can tell. Would you like to expand on what these features that Cursive has that are "Categorically better" than Emacs'? I'm not saying there isn't any, and certainly I've used better refactoring tools than https://github.com/clojure-emacs/clj-refactor.el https://github.com/clojure-emacs/clj-refactor.el in other languages. But what on earth is wrong with the navigation? The main advantage I've seen form a colleague is the highlighting automatically of usages, but I'm pretty sure I can set that up in Emacs too.

eru 11y ago

You can get these things as plugins for Vim and Emacs, too.

kriro 11y ago

From hat I've seen I'll disagree. The people that use vim efficiently [emacs users just substitute emacs] don't just use vim. They are also very efficient using the surrounding (Unixoid) environment. Specifically file searching...I'm not sure IDEs have an edge there. These days there's also things like eclim. I don't know it seems like vim style editing is still the best way to get around the codebase and actually work with the text but IDEs have great integration to work with the code. So I think the optimal solution is a "best of both worlds" approach which means a vim-plugin for the IDE or an IDEfeatures-plugin for vim. I see the former setup a lot. --- and my wild guess is that emacs actually has great code integration for Lisps. I don't know what the state of the art Lisp IDE is but I'd be shocked if it was better than emacs.

benihana 11y ago

>It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo". You found me out! My preferred environment set up is nothing more than machismo directed at you, a complete stranger. If only I'd had the humility to try an IDE, I could have been enlightened My eyes hurt from rolling them so hard at your comment.

wtbob 11y ago

Do you realise that emacs supports 'intelligent, realtime code analysis'? I program in Go, and I have auto-completion and documentation. Emacs is more extensible, and more easily extensible, than Eclipse. Yes, an IDE is pretty nice for a particular kind of horrible enterprise coding: the sort where no-one understands the system, where everything's horribly over-architected and where, yes, ultra-fast auto-completion is necessary to get anything done. But…why live like that? There're interesting problems and fun environments where one doesn't need to live in that kind of hell. emacs can handle that, but you have to start asking yourself if it even makes sense to do. A lot of times, those IDEs are just managing spurious complexity, not actually helping build something great.

mschaef 11y ago

It's more than a little ironic that you claim Emacs/vim users use their tool out of 'harcdore, programmer machismo', and you're doing basically the same thing in the opposite direction by accusing them of being unprofessional. For me, I've used both IDE's and plain ordinary text editors for close to 30 years (the first IDE being QuickBasic 4), and tend to find that IDE's get in the way more often than not. My personal software designs tend to use single components for single functions, so the additional complexities of an IDE's second compiler, second build tool, second VCS front end are less than appealing to me. That said, I've gotten a lot of use in the last 24 hours out of code refactoring the the IntelliJ debugger, so I think the honest answer is to use both approaches if you like.