nesdev.org

Please answer honestly what is your opinion about the Eclipse IDE (I just want to know if I am alone to think what I think).

The reason I ask is because I have to use it at work.

I've got a love/hate relationship with Eclipse IDE, though a bit more hate than love. I can't stand the workspace concept in Eclipse (with invisible files in directory), I tend to prefer much more IDEs with an file representing the project, like Code::Blocks or Visual Studio do. But then, these times I prefer not using IDEs at all and play with Vim.

Well personally I hate how Eclipse is completely bloated and incredibly slow which is my 1st complaint, but I also am not comfortable with workspaces, which usually involves some multiple copies of your projects because you want to back up them, as Eclipse is so unstable you never know when a workspace will be "corrupted". I also hate how you have to install multiple instances of it for different kinds of projects, each one taking 1GB of hard drive space, and how it adds a lot of random hidden files/folders everywhere on your PC even in folders that have barely any relationship with your projects.

Since eclipse just calls other tools I think it's a better idea to use them directly. The only problem is that I'm not used to debug using the command line, this is not an easy thing to do, but I guess I'll have to learn, follow some tutorials and show my boss how it's much easier to work by avoiding Eclipse completely, even for debugging.

If you've seen one horribly bloated java-based IDE, you've seen them all. I wouldn't know the difference between Netbeans and Eclipse if they came up to me and slapped me in the face.

I've used Eclipse in college only, but only for really small programs and I never installed it in my own PC, so it didn't bother much, but I do hate bloated IDEs in general. The idea of installing GB sized programs in every computer I work on, having to setup tons of things before I can compile anything and giving these programs full control over my project's files makes me sick. Which is why I ended up doing HTML/CSS/JavaScript development, because all I need is Notepad++ (or even regular Notepad if I'm desperate).

Which is why I ended up doing HTML/CSS/JavaScript development, because all I need is Notepad++ (or even regular Notepad if I'm desperate).

Browsers might not be as bloated as Eclipse, but you do have to install *all* browsers, but you also have to keep all of them up to date.

Personally I didn't like doing HTML/CSS/JS development because it felt the exact same as back in the day when I was coding NES ROMs for Nesticle, and it worked, and then I tried in Nester and it didn't work so I had to make modifications.... Nesticle and Internet Explorer plays the exact same role in both cases

The main difference is that there is no "real browser" like there is a "real hardware" for the NES. Very likely if I didn't ever do NES development this wouldn't have bothered me, though.

Not only that, but you also have to either buy a Mac or turn away users of Safari on OS X and users of iOS.

Well, I used the Windows version of Safari when I had to do that, hoping it would not differ from the OSX version in functionality...

Bregalad wrote:Browsers might not be as bloated as Eclipse, but you do have to install *all* browsers, but you also have to keep all of them up to date.

Sort of true, but things aren't so bad nowadays. The new standards are much more consistent across browsers than the mess we had a few years ago. Also, JavaScript libraries that abstract the browser differences (such as jQuery or the multitude of polyfills that transparently simulate new functionality in older browsers) are very helpful.

Personally I didn't like doing HTML/CSS/JS development because it felt the exact same as back in the day when I was coding NES ROMs for Nesticle, and it worked, and then I tried in Nester and it didn't work so I had to make modifications.... Nesticle and Internet Explorer plays the exact same role in both cases

After years of web development, you end up learning what works where and what doesn't, so there's very little guesswork. When you know what you're doing and understand why each browser does what it does, you instinctively use the safest solutions for each problem. I have been doing less and less browser checking and clients hardly ever complain that anything is broken. The fact that new browsers (and software in general) auto update by default surely helps with achieving a consistent experience across different platforms.

tepples wrote:Not only that, but you also have to either buy a Mac or turn away users of Safari on OS X and users of iOS.

There are also online services that run your website through several different browsers and show you the result. Sure, there's only so much you can verify from looking at static screen captures, but since the bulk of browser incompatibilities lie in the CSS, static images are usually enough.

Bregalad wrote:Windows version of Safari

Discontinued. I get the impression that when it did exist, it was intended to help web developers become familiar enough with Safari to develop web apps for iPhone OS 1, where all apps were expected to be web apps.

tokumaru wrote:Also, JavaScript libraries that abstract the browser differences (such as jQuery or the multitude of polyfills that transparently simulate new functionality in older browsers) are very helpful.

If you see a problem on a specific browser but not on another, is there a bug in your script for relying on unspecified or undefined behavior? Or is there a bug in the polyfill?

The fact that new browsers (and software in general) auto update by default surely helps with achieving a consistent experience across different platforms.

This wasn't true prior to April 2014. Internet Explorer for Windows XP was widely used, and Microsoft refused to update it past version 8. In April 2014, Microsoft stopped issuing security updates for Windows XP, which means you can finally presume that IE on XP is insecure.

There are also online services that run your website through several different browsers and show you the result. Sure, there's only so much you can verify from looking at static screen captures, but since the bulk of browser incompatibilities lie in the CSS, static images are usually enough.

This is true of the -webkit- prefix hell. But a lot of times one will run into a polyfill bug, an unusably slow polyfill, an intentional refusal of a particular operating system publisher to allow distribution of browsers that implement web platform features required to create a polyfill, a failure to respond to touch events that you can't generate with a mouse on a PC browser, or a failure in interactive technologies such as the 2D canvas or WebGL. For example, Safari for iOS prior to iOS 8 would consistently refuse to render WebGL outside Apple-approved iAd modules.

tokumaru wrote:I do hate bloated IDEs in general. The idea of installing GB sized programs in every computer I work on, having to setup tons of things before I can compile anything and giving these programs full control over my project's files makes me sick. Which is why I ended up doing HTML/CSS/JavaScript development, because all I need is Notepad++ (or even regular Notepad if I'm desperate).

I fully agree! As a hobby programmer I almost never really needed anything more advanced than Notepad++ (or similar Linux text editor) and lightweight compiling/assembling environment using batch/bash and/or Notepad++ plug-ins. I think Code::Blocks is a bit on the heavy side so I cringe at the thought of using things like Eclipse.

I use eclipse pretty much every day for work. I use it primarily for Java development, and it fewer bugs than it used to. I haven't found a free IDE that works as well with Maven.

For Python development I use PyCharm. It would be nice if it was able to pickup Python's dynamic nature, but it's great for being free (community version).

I despise web development in all shapes/forms. Every time I have to do simple web pages with a back end it makes me sick. I can't imagine wanting to do that crap for a living, ugh.

I never liked Eclipse for the reason being that Vim serves my needs better then Eclipse will ever be. You see the problem with Eclipse is that it forces you to use your mouse when you are trying to type. When I want to type, I want my fingers to remain on the keyboard and close to home row preferably. Vim does that well.

I prefer makefiles over silly projects and whatnot. The advantage of makefiles is it is clear to those who knows make what should happen and there is less uncertainty that projects will build on different systems in comparison to an IDE such as Eclipse. Also IDEs tend to use specific project formats which I understand why that is necessary but I nevertheless I do not like that. Lets say someone uses a (fictional) IDE called "Eclipse on steroids" and it creates a project file that is specific to it. I do not have "Eclipse on steroids" so I need to download it. Lets pretend the download is 10gb. That takes quite some time to download. Not everyone has an ultra fast connect. Although I will do other things while that is downloading it still wastes time that could have been dedicated to working on the project that created the need for the new IDE. People have different preferences and should not be forced to use one program. I have made it clear that I like Vim, but I know that is not true for all people. If someone wants to use a different text editor such as Emacs they like they should be able to do such so as long as it doesn't force me to use such software.

Eclipse also starts up slow and even when running runs slow. I like being able to get started quickly.

I think this IDE is not bad.
I used it to write Flex/Java code at work last two years, and also used it to write C++ code in my spare time.
Its code prompt function is really good, but it occupies lot of memory.

Bregalad wrote:Well personally I hate how Eclipse is completely bloated and incredibly slow

What they get for making it in Java...(although that does mean Eclipse could be made in Eclipse).