Presumably intentionally so; VSCode w/ language-server driven intellisense has taken over the editor market in a big way, and I gather they’re trying to make the sales pitch of “pay us money for our product instead” a little easier by softening the UI changes for anyone who they can convince to switch.
Not ideal for people who love the current JetBrains IDE UI paradigm, I suppose.
I feel like that goes both ways though. If there’s less difference, why am I paying?
I am not an absolutionist in terms of redesigns, but as someone who likes using Jetbrains software for working in Enterprise Software, moving towards this “you can barely have two files open at once” design makes me a bit sad (I’m 100% sure I can mess around with the configuration/layout to get what I want of course)
I feel like that goes both ways though. If there’s less difference, why am I paying?
I mean it’s hard to say (I’m neither a vscode nor much of a jetbrains guy), but in my limited experience with CLion I walked away with the impression that one buys it for the features (some of which are advantages over rust-analyzer), and merely tolerates the UI. Not that there’s anything completely wrong with the UI, but the current mostly bog-standard “bag of icons” IDE paradigm can’t really be selling many licenses on its strength alone, can it?
“We’ve got these features but a UI familiar to you” is probably an easier sell than “we’ve got these features and a UI familiar to a VB6 dev” to the newer generation of JS/python/Ruby/Go devs they’re increasingly trying to target, who’ve mostly come up on the textmate/sublime/atom/vscode evolution of editors, is my basic read. The Visual Studio proper / Eclipse school of IDE design is probably slowly going away as it’s becoming increasingly unfamiliar to younger devs.
For me, the biggest value of JetBrains is their unified framework for parsing and manipulating code, which allows for a reasonably consistent experience across languages in their IDEs. For single-language usage, I‘m not that sure.
I feel like that goes both ways though. If there’s less difference, why am I paying?
I’ve jumped around between a number of editors and IDEs for the last.. decade and a half.. I’ve never seen one that is both cross platform, and has the same level of code intelligence as IDEA/derivatives.
I’m not talking about basic auto-complete of function/method names/parameters.
If your codebase is typed (even e.g php runtime typing works), IDEA can make refactoring code a lot less tedious.
Rename a method? Add a non-optional argument? Move a method to a different class? Move a class to a different namespace? Rename an entire namespace? Consolidate hard coded strings into constants? Inline functions/methods, variable/const references, etc? Yep yep yep yep yep. And that’s just considering “regular” languages. Want to hook up a connection to an SQL DB and write raw queries against it? No worries, it’ll give you code intel against the DB schema on-the-fly.
Personally, it doesn’t help that the current crop of popular non-IDE “editors” are basically all electron based - if I’m going to need a couple of gig of memory just for the IDE, I damn well want it to do more than be a glorified text editor in a web view.
This is part of why I’m quite looking forward to Fleet - sometimes I don’t need all that refactoring support (i.e. writing markdown docs) and a lightweight mode would be nice, and the ability to have cross-arch workflows (i.e. run fleet backend on an intel machine for some particular project, use an arm machine as my workstation) will be quite interesting too.
context: been using qubes on a thinkpad for over a year
tl;dw: love it, try it, decent i3wm integration .. expect a learning curve , this is quite different from a regular linux distro . and don’t expect decent battery life if on a laptop
wow, great read. this is one hell of a treat ( i actually wrote that even before reading your username :O )
thanks for the references, some more great thoughts in those. (there might be one broken link that lead me to a phx.corporate-ir.net domain .. cant remember which link i had clicked)
The broken link is supposed to link to one of Amazon’s security filings (also referred to as the “2016 Letter to Shareholders”). It’s the letter where Jeff Bezos lays out his “Day 1” vs “Day 2” philosophy and publicly coins the term “disagree and commit”.
The relevant portion on “disagree and commit”:
Third, use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.
This isn’t one way. If you’re the boss, you should do this too. I disagree and commit all the time. We recently greenlit a particular Amazon Studios original. I told the team my view: debatable whether it would be interesting enough, complicated to produce, the business terms aren’t that good, and we have lots of other opportunities. They had a completely different opinion and wanted to go ahead. I wrote back right away with “I disagree and commit and hope it becomes the most watched thing we’ve ever made.” Consider how much slower this decision cycle would have been if the team had actually had to convince me rather than simply get my commitment.
I’m pretty sure Andy Grove came up with it at Intel even earlier, but it’s all a part of the cult of management at this point. Disagreements are merely people slowing down “good business activity” from occurring, those bastards. The disease they’re trying to prevent is pretty awful as well: people who think that disagreeing with others is how their voice can be heard, and their value communicated at work.
At least Andy Grove’s catch phrase was “constructive confrontation”. His books also bring up trying to find the Cassandra’s in your staff, listen to what they have to say, and incorporate it into your strategy. In printed from, at least, Grove was very for searching for the truth and not just plowing over subordinates.
:( this looks too much like vs code to me
Presumably intentionally so; VSCode w/ language-server driven intellisense has taken over the editor market in a big way, and I gather they’re trying to make the sales pitch of “pay us money for our product instead” a little easier by softening the UI changes for anyone who they can convince to switch.
Not ideal for people who love the current JetBrains IDE UI paradigm, I suppose.
I feel like that goes both ways though. If there’s less difference, why am I paying?
I am not an absolutionist in terms of redesigns, but as someone who likes using Jetbrains software for working in Enterprise Software, moving towards this “you can barely have two files open at once” design makes me a bit sad (I’m 100% sure I can mess around with the configuration/layout to get what I want of course)
I mean it’s hard to say (I’m neither a vscode nor much of a jetbrains guy), but in my limited experience with CLion I walked away with the impression that one buys it for the features (some of which are advantages over rust-analyzer), and merely tolerates the UI. Not that there’s anything completely wrong with the UI, but the current mostly bog-standard “bag of icons” IDE paradigm can’t really be selling many licenses on its strength alone, can it?
“We’ve got these features but a UI familiar to you” is probably an easier sell than “we’ve got these features and a UI familiar to a VB6 dev” to the newer generation of JS/python/Ruby/Go devs they’re increasingly trying to target, who’ve mostly come up on the textmate/sublime/atom/vscode evolution of editors, is my basic read. The Visual Studio proper / Eclipse school of IDE design is probably slowly going away as it’s becoming increasingly unfamiliar to younger devs.
For me, the biggest value of JetBrains is their unified framework for parsing and manipulating code, which allows for a reasonably consistent experience across languages in their IDEs. For single-language usage, I‘m not that sure.
I’ve jumped around between a number of editors and IDEs for the last.. decade and a half.. I’ve never seen one that is both cross platform, and has the same level of code intelligence as IDEA/derivatives.
I’m not talking about basic auto-complete of function/method names/parameters.
If your codebase is typed (even e.g php runtime typing works), IDEA can make refactoring code a lot less tedious.
Rename a method? Add a non-optional argument? Move a method to a different class? Move a class to a different namespace? Rename an entire namespace? Consolidate hard coded strings into constants? Inline functions/methods, variable/const references, etc? Yep yep yep yep yep. And that’s just considering “regular” languages. Want to hook up a connection to an SQL DB and write raw queries against it? No worries, it’ll give you code intel against the DB schema on-the-fly.
Personally, it doesn’t help that the current crop of popular non-IDE “editors” are basically all electron based - if I’m going to need a couple of gig of memory just for the IDE, I damn well want it to do more than be a glorified text editor in a web view.
This is part of why I’m quite looking forward to Fleet - sometimes I don’t need all that refactoring support (i.e. writing markdown docs) and a lightweight mode would be nice, and the ability to have cross-arch workflows (i.e. run fleet backend on an intel machine for some particular project, use an arm machine as my workstation) will be quite interesting too.
context: been using qubes on a thinkpad for over a year tl;dw: love it, try it, decent i3wm integration .. expect a learning curve , this is quite different from a regular linux distro . and don’t expect decent battery life if on a laptop
who actually serves those ads ? IG themselves ? or are they leveraging google’s ad network ?
They use unified Facebook/Instagram ad network http://imgur.com/a/AYdrb
wow, great read. this is one hell of a treat ( i actually wrote that even before reading your username :O )
thanks for the references, some more great thoughts in those. (there might be one broken link that lead me to a phx.corporate-ir.net domain .. cant remember which link i had clicked)
The broken link is supposed to link to one of Amazon’s security filings (also referred to as the “2016 Letter to Shareholders”). It’s the letter where Jeff Bezos lays out his “Day 1” vs “Day 2” philosophy and publicly coins the term “disagree and commit”.
The relevant portion on “disagree and commit”:
Here’s the actual filing as hosted by the SEC:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312517120198/d373368dex991.htm
Small correction: that phrase has been part of the Amazon principles for, basically, ever.
https://www.amazon.jobs/principles
I’m pretty sure Andy Grove came up with it at Intel even earlier, but it’s all a part of the cult of management at this point. Disagreements are merely people slowing down “good business activity” from occurring, those bastards. The disease they’re trying to prevent is pretty awful as well: people who think that disagreeing with others is how their voice can be heard, and their value communicated at work.
At least Andy Grove’s catch phrase was “constructive confrontation”. His books also bring up trying to find the Cassandra’s in your staff, listen to what they have to say, and incorporate it into your strategy. In printed from, at least, Grove was very for searching for the truth and not just plowing over subordinates.
I actually have it setup with RSS with feedly and am pretty happy with it, not sure if its a summary of the bests posts though