- No more growth for traditional software engineers in terms of new jobs. Role essentially becomes deprecated, we start transitioning into new software engineers.
- Consumer hardware space becomes more popular for new startups
"Mom, I already told you: you have to generate a key pair, split the private key into three parts using Shamir' secret sharing algorithm, then give each part to three banks. Whenever you want to use it, you have to go collect it from each of those banks---but DON'T write it down anywhere---and perform your transaction"
And to think the conversation started with an observation that people can't even remember one password.
I agree, there's miles of runway remaining for improving the UX. I actually think it'd be neat if a crypto had this (and a few other things) as a baked-in feature. i.e. In order to create a wallet in the first place, you need to identify e.g. 5 trusted friends who'll serve as recovery partners. Maybe it's initially tied to the same invite mechanic used to join the ecosystem. Could be done in a privacy-preserving (and to some degree anonymity-preserving) fashion. The right UI could make this even simpler than recovering a Gmail account. Everyone would just have it set up, and these conversations about losing your keys would be a relic of the past.
I don't understand why this was downvoted. In case it's not clear: (S)he's saying to split the key into multiple shares that can be used to reconstruct the key if you have a large enough quorum. Then store each share in a different place. As long as you don't lose too many of the shares, you'll be fine. And one baddie is NOT enough to get the key.
Either shuffling those keys stored in N different deposit boxes is overly complicated for a normal person, or it is not overly complicated for a moderately dedicated baddie either
Unless the "baddie" in this case is the government, why would it be easy for anyone to obtain access to multiple secrets stored in multiple boxes/banks?
Multisig is a pretty common setup for crypto and there is software that makes it easier.
"soerxpso" said "store your key at the bank", but you are saying "two or N places". So it sounds like 1 bank is less secure for your key then 1 bank is for your money, because you need two or more banks for your key, while 1 bank for your money is sufficient. Correct?
Their product embodied their values. It turned out that their values are quite radical when exposed to general public. In my opinion, unless there are people and cultural changes - its quite hard to imagine their long term success in this space
I don't think it's radical that when prompted with something like "Generate photos of doctors", that it's reasonable to return a set of images that shows diversity (e.g., instead of being a bunch of white men), even if that isn't representative of a "population sample".
I guess though there were unintended consequence where I imagine they're prompting the model with something along the lines of "and remember to be diverse!", and there are obviously some cases where this isn't a good idea. In particular, when the prompt itself is for something that is explicitly racial or where the result is "charged".
E.g., if someone asks for photos of white people, the AI shouldn't generate photos of people that aren't white (and fine, it might return a disclaimer that it only generate white people because you asked it to).
More nuanced though are situations like asking it about historically evil people (e.g., Nazis, as was one of the examples I've seen) but also more benign things like British monarchs or something. I think trying to figure out what kind of results to "inject" diversity into isn't easy though, since it feels like there are many edge cases.
> I don't think it's radical that when prompted with something like "Generate photos of doctors", that it's reasonable to return a set of images that shows diversity
Historically Google had a very simple solution to globally differing expectations about query results: IP or account geolocation. Query personalization by geography is one of the biggest quality wins in web search. Generalizing, an AI built with the same values and ethos as classical Google web search would respond to "Generate a photo of doctors" differently depending on where in the world you asked it from.
That solution also fixes many other cases that aren't third rails, like "Show me a good nearby restaurant serving local food" which you can't solve by attempting to hallucinate a non-existent restaurant that serves a menu of every conceivable dish weighted by population size.
It's unclear why this solution wouldn't resolve all their stated concerns, so we might infer that their actual goals differ from their stated goals. For example, influencing the people who use their services.
That doesn't work well in America, maybe works well in less diverse places like Europe/Asia.
If you're in NYC/SF and you search for "generate photos of doctors", you expect to see people of all colors represented. Yet the training data for a lot of this is based off white-centric Anglo-centric media.
"Good restaurant near me"? There's literally a dozen amazing cuisines around.
All this said, I'm actually not a fan of this forced 'diversity' in results. Just show me the data and hope that we'll have more diverse data sources.
Another issue I see based on your comment is that segmenting based on locale (diverse mix in SF, white majority in Kansas) is that it can just take what knowledge and norms exist now and harden them.
And here the "proportional to the actual distribution" means distribution in training data. If that is not diverse enough, they can very well spend couple billions and go get more from areas that increase that diversity, like mentioned Africa and Asia and maybe South America...
That would be a default. Defaulting to current demographics fitting whatever context is requested (e.g. "a set of US doctors" matching US population demographics) would be an entirely reasonable default, but it would still be a default.
I don't think Google sets the agenda. They get their orders like the rest of us, and then probably handed it over to an army of low-paid offshore contractors to implement. How else could you explain Gemma believing Abe Lincoln was black? If Googlers had done the mind-killing work of RLHF training themselves, things would have turned out differently. They were however nice enough to give us a version of the model that doesn't have RLHF training and it's illuminating to compare how it responds to certain queries, because oftentimes the sentences will be the same and only have specific key words or phrases within the sentence changed.
buthe's not the CEO of gemini. He was a director which is a fairly vague term at Google (Peter Norvig says he's Director of Research at Google, but he was a director of research, not the director). Also he (Krawcyzk) locked his twitter and his linkedin. I can imagine Sundar is also looking for ways to get this guy out of the decision path for Gemini.
Don't believe Fox News when they say this guy is a Google exec. It looks like he's just a product manager. I wouldn't hold being spicy on Twitter four years ago against any man, but someone torpedoed their Gemini product and a product manager actually would have the authority to dictate these kinds of decisions. For example, the way the the language model has been programmed to rewrite the user's question before handing it over to the vision model. That's something that's most likely attributable to him. I mean it's one thing to change the training data to remove all information about personal appearance, a curious thing for that algorithm to fail to include Internet rumors about Abe Lincoln being black in that category, an annoying thing for it to refuse to generate content it considers offensive, and another thing entirely to program an information system to meddle with user queries on top of that since that shows an unprecedented level of disrespect.
As for whether a single product manager has that level of control over the serving product... query term rewriting has been a google strategy for quite some time and I doubt a single PM really can influence the product this way and still manage to launch, but as I don't work there and am not privy to the internal details of this product's launch, I can't really say.
That the product is full of disrespect for the user, that I agree. I don't envy the paeans trying to get promos by associating their name with gemini internally.
"Krawczyk’s official title is senior director of product management for Gemini, the company’s main group of AI models.
Though he’s lowering his public profile, Krawczyk is still engaged in the work on Gemini products and has the same title, according to sources with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named in order to speak on the issue."
>From his linkedin: Senior Director of Product in Gemini, VP WeWork, "Advisor" VSCO, VP of advertising products in Pandora, Product Marketing Manager Google+, Business analyst JPMorgan Chase...
Their values, but there is also common sense. If they start pushing out unbelievable things like a black queen of England ... they are hurting their own goals. Diversification should stop at the boundary of believability.
Thanks for sharing. I don't have such good credentials, but I've had my time wasted as well. Now without a written position description and salary I don't agree to the meetings. Seems like a great filter as at least half of the recruiters don't answer
I am not sure if its due new Youtube CEO, but it is getting very hostile recently. One example I can share – I usually did open youtube.com and see suggested videos list. Now instead of that I get 'dark pattern' information about how I don't share my history – therefore youtube cannot suggest me anything. I don't know, if it can't, why not show my subscriptions then? I still pay for premium, but I barely use it these days. Might state the obvious, its only because they have monopoly that they can get away with this hostility to its users.
I upvote things that are interesting to me and hope they will be interesting for others.
I rarely downvote. Maybe only rude comments? Not sure, but it happens rarely.
European Commission fits here. Head of commission is approved by parliament as far I know, but commissars are not elected, just suggested by each state governments. Also, all EU laws can only be proposed by European Commission. Others can suggest them, but only they can bring them to parliament. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
> European Commission fits here. Head of commission is approved by parliament as far I know, but commissars are not elected, just suggested by each state governments.
The commissioners are appointed by the EC president in consultation with the member governments, and then the commission as a whole needs to secure approval of parliament. This is similar to the process by which parliamentary governments usually form a cabinet, but with the European Council (representatives of all member-state governments) serving in the role of head of state.
One typically talks about the government in a parliamentary system as being elected, so...
The EU Parliament isn't really a parliament, so that argument doesn't work. If it was really a parliament the Commission would work for the MEPs and they'd be the ones deciding the law. In the EU it's the other way around.
The way they play games with words doesn't make it a democratic system, it is however a very effective tool for the EU to muddy the water and confuse people into thinking it has greater legitimacy than it really does.
So which part do you see as undemocratic? The parliament is directly elected by the EU populace. The council is the heads of state, which are elected by the respective national electorate. The commission is appointed by those same elected national governments.
Is that appointment process not democratic because its one layer of indirection? It's the same thing that happens for pretty much any minister/secretary in pretty much every democracy. Is the US government not a democratic system because the secretary of state is appointed? Is the UK not democratic because the Cabinet is appointed? Are there any democracies by that narrow definition?
See my other reply. You are confused about the nature of the EU and are repeating how the treaties say they are supposed to work, not what processes are actually followed.
Are the EU state governments not elected? Last I checked they were.
Lots of bureaucratic and political positions are appointed by other elected representatives. We can't elect everybody, that would be too much. So is that really a problem here?
I am not that up to speed on the intricacies of EU governance at this level so I really don't know if this is a real problem or not.
This is more like the way we used to elect Senators in the US. The state legislatures used to select Senators until we amended the Constitution to require direct election by the people. Personally, I would prefer direct accountability of top government officials like the European Commission to the public.
This IDE doesn't seem to differ from CLion with Rust plugin. I guess, its only about making Rust plugin paid from their side – which makes sense from their side. I hope they can deliver quality.
On the other hand, they are notoriously slow to develop their IDEs. Features are super slow to be delivered, IDEs themselves are not really improved as well. They are focusing on things most don't care: Spaces, new UI project, etc. Barely any performance improvements, customisation is hard, Ruby, Scala and other plugins are lacking as well. Scala showing red squiggly lines where its not supposed to (on their compiler), Ruby lacking ergonomics in refactoring department (refactoring too large scope and etc.) or tooling support.
I still pay Jetbrains and while 2015 they were above everything else – its no longer the case. I grew up with them as developer, I hope they can up their game.
> On the other hand, they are notoriously slow to develop their IDEs.
I found that IntelliJ IDEs for me are almost at the perfection level. I don't really need any new changes, except for simple incremental ones like supporting new languages.
I've been using IntelliJ since 2003, and it's amazing how little my main workflows have changed since then.
And every release they break my Split-view workflow. It is just random thing, every time something different. The latest thing - when the current file is split vertically, new split has viewport moved to something like 20 lines below. And yes, every time it takes years to actually fix those.
Its looks like Jetbrains is migrating to an N IDE's for N languages approach - bloat up memory and disk so they can be paid more.
No point in buying Intellij Ultimate and installing language plugins. As is clear from this post, the language plugins will no longer see new features.
Now you need to purchase and start the IDE's for Rust, Go, C++, Python, etc. So if you are working in multiple language projects, you need $$$ purchase power. And then 64 GB RAM and several terabytes of hard disk space.
This is my biggest problem with the JetBrains world. It should be one IDEA and a bunch of plugins (of which Java should be one). I don't know why I need X copies of the same tool with different config files.
Mine indexes every time I boot it up, per project, so sometimes several times per week, fortunately not every day.
No, no bad faith, it's simply my number one pain point.
Imagine there are people who work on different repos/projects. Just quickly opening another up during a call? Maybe wait 5 minutes. This is decent hardware on an SSD. We're not talking about 10 year old 2m LOC mammoths, but also not "I expect it to start up in 3s like an editor and not an IDE".
I suffered that exact same issue for a very long time with IntelliJ.
If you haven't tried upgrading yet, I'd recommend it. They did a huge amount of work to address the issue, and from my experience, it's significantly better in 2023.2.
That's how all their IDEs work. It's all the same software with different sets of allowed plugins.
I would also argue that their IDEs are largely mature, feature-complete software. I'm quite happy they haven't succumbed to the modern trend of reorganize all the menus every 6 months.
Not all their IDEs. Jetbrains Rider has specific modifications that are integrated into the IDE for .NET software development that aren't available in even in IntelliJ Idea Ultimate. The same goes for CLion, the C/C++ features are not available in any other of their IDEs. Though, I think those are the only two IDEs where the the features provided are not available as plugins.
I wonder when this started, I was under the impression that Ultimate had it all, but maybe that was either never true, or only when I last had to petition for the team to get it (10 years ago). Not even sure either Rider or CLion did exist back then.
For Rider, it's because they built ReSharper (a Visual Studio extension) before Rider, and then built Rider to make it use ReSharper as a back end without Visual Studio, while still using the IntelliJ platform.
Could you get into more detail please? From my (brief) experience with your products I think the differences are indeed mostly in the plugins, apart from cosmetic / UX ones, like different keyboard shortcuts (which by the way never made sense to me).
There's nothing wrong with selling sets of plugins by the way. I don't really get why it must be different IDEs though.
Only insofar is that there is less of a grand framework for the language analysis and manipulation, refactoring, and syntax and error highlighting than one might think. (I still find this hard to believe, but perhaps this was due to an impedance mismatch between me and my JB interlocutor.)
I was under my own (pretty pedestrian) assumption that the secret sauce of JB IDES is/was the MPS system in which they are/were able to create libraries for source code analysis and manipulation on a language-by-language basis. I further assumed that this per-language library plus some language-specific GUI tooling, plus the language-independent GUI libraries and processing (local history, VCS integration, side-by-side textual (not semantic) diffing tools, and so on)
The response I got, which was quite a while ago (2019 or before) was that the individual language IDEs did not use MPS-generated libraries in perhaps the extensive way I've alluded to above, and this surprised and disillusioned me somewhat. I was hoping to get as much of an answer from my JB friend as, presumably, you were from me in this thread. :-)
Yes of course, there must be massive code reuse between projects, and yes, this was an entirely hand-waving set of assumptions, and no, I haven't researched the composition of any given JB IDE to find out the proportions of language-independent vs language-specific code volume.
I'm surprised someone at JB hasn't given a talk on this sort of thing over the years.
Thank you for the extensive answer! Yes, I guess some code reuse would make sense, but when growing it is difficult to know which abstractoon makes sense, so from the business perspective it is often a better strategy to copy and adapt code, even if that means worse maintainability down the road.
In my relatively limited experience with PyCharm and GoLand (with a hint of CLion/IDEA), the individual IDE's make working with a language much simpler and straightforward. Using the language plugins within another IDE adds a few layers of friction with trying to find settings, panels, etc, whereas the IDEs offer workflows OOTB designed for that particular language.
Sorry I can't provide specifics, it's been a hot minute since I've used a JB product but I did enjoy my time with them.
Well, Ultimate is very java specific out of the box. Doesn't help that I use it for java as well. I could possibly have multiple profiles for different use cases, but why? All Product bundle after 3 years is cheap enough that paying for it isn't noticeable at all.
VSCodium has that too: Ctrl/Cmd-P for “find anything”, Ctrl/Cmd-Shift-P (or F1) for “what the IDE can do for you”. Two different modes instead of one for both, but either way it's pretty neat, I agree.
I think the only other piece of software I've seen this function in was some open source CAD software (can't remember from the top of my head), which had it mapped to the spacebar. Perhaps that should work for stuff like graphic or video editors, too.
I use mostly Scala and Rust and both have significant issues still with incorrect syntax highlighting, refactoring being limited and slowness with larger projects.
I guess it's just that I have a hard time reading a statement like "Features are super slow to be delivered" and even trying to understand where that person is coming from. Like, what general, non-language specific features does he think IntelliJ lacks at this point? Is he upset he can't use it to mail a check to his utility company?
Also, Scala sort of recently became completely revamped and I have only had a not too positive experience with the new version - which does make sense that it won’t instantly be as feature-complete.
I believe it is just called Scala3 now, dotty was actually a reimplemented compiler for that new version, and that’s why it used to be referred to as such.
When Goland launched it wasn't that much different from IntelliJ IDEA with the Go plugin. In the intervening years it has come to feel like a significantly better product than that combination.
This is why I am happy to see RustRover - it's very likely the significantly better product is actually similar for the Go plugin. Once they release an IDE, it seems development picks up and things get a lot better quicker.
I have used clion with rust plugin and while it's better than nothing, it's generally been pretty spotty on all the features, completion, marking errors, refactoring. I'm looking forward to RustRover "pulling a GoLand" by bringing a proper IDE experience to rust.
Not much actually, but for me it’s default settings of Goland vs “you need to setup some small things, plugins and shortcuts in Intellij IDEA Ultimate to work with Go effectively”. Ultimate is also a bit slower if you don’t disable a ton of Java plugins. But if you don’t need Java and disable it anyway, why not to use more streamlined and lightweight Goland?
the go plugin that existed at the time of goland creation and what exists today are very very different things.
the go plugin back then was very simple. The fact that you get most of the goland experience in idea ultmate today is because they are investing into the go ecosystem as an independent profit making endeavor in and of itself, not simply a small value add.
Technically it's not Free (libre) or Open Source. The "VSCode" that people use is a proprietary telemetry-laiden application that cannot be reproducibly built from available source. You're probably wanting: https://vscodium.com/
Telemetry is orthogonal to the concepts of Free/Open source. You sound like someone who just has an ideological objection to companies making money and producing text editors, and to proprietary software. However, many of the people here on HN work on proprietary software.
Jetbrains has plenty of extensions (1st party, high quality plugins that are far better than some of the 1st party Microsoft plugins) and no one cares if it's by Microsoft (what does "commondize code editors" even mean? Do you really think any vscode users care?).
Honestly, I doubt most people even care it's kind-of open source (1).
> 1. Free
This is the reason most people use vscode.
That's it.
It's free, and it's pretty good.
It's not better. It's just free.
Nothing wrong with liking free stuff; free stuff is great; but don't confuse 'it didn't cost me anything' with 'it's good'.
There's a difference between value (ie. for what you paid, you got something that was worth significantly more than you paid, which in this case is zero) and quality (independent of cost, the thing is just plain old good).
vscode may be more valuable to people than jetbrains products, but it isn't a higher quality product.
There's a massive difference between those two things.
> Honestly, I doubt most people even care it's kind-of open source (1).
Average users might not care. But extension authors do. Yes, of course you can write extensions for close source projects, but it'd take longer to do "hacky" things since you'll need to read decompiled code / memory stack to understand its internals. I remember a very popular extension used a private field (and later broke because VSCode changed its internal implementation).
I personally constantly check Blender's source code here and there during the development for our internal Python tools, so I suppose people who write VSCode extension sometimes do.
> (what does "commondize code editors" even mean? Do you really think any vscode users care?).
It means VScode benefits MS indirectly and they can keep it free indefinitely while being a for-profit company.
>Nothing wrong with liking free stuff; free stuff is great; but don't confuse 'it didn't cost me anything' with 'it's good'.
I paid for Sublime Text 3 back in the day and still pay for Rider. I prefer VS Code to Sublime Text 3 as it's more extensible for the kinds of environments I work in, and has some decent built-in amenities like version control and debuggers.
It's not better than Rider objectively (and it's not better by design. MSFT doesn't want to cannabalize Visual Studio), but for smaller scripting and editing it runs circles around Rider. I prefer using it when I know I'm not going to be coding something complex nor for hours on end. A great complimentary tool to have on end.
But if you have a "good" alternative as this lightweight c#/c++ editor, let me know. Someone recommended Zed but that is Mac only.
I did for years and it was perfectly fine. But then I got hooked on the additional Spring configuration support that comes with the Ultimate edition
But yes, IntelliJ Community edition feels very complete for a lot of programming tasks (my experience is mostly Java/Kotlin projects with a bit of web frontend & Rust on the side). It comes with debugging but not with a profiler (which I still haven't used )
So try the community edition and see if you miss anything! Chances are you won't.
There's something to be said for a "pre-packaged" IDE where you don't have to first install the "bare-bones" IDE and then find and install various plugins (of which there may be several with overlapping functionality, where you have to first find out which one works better for you, where you never know if there might be conflicts etc. etc.). Turns out there are even people willing to pay money for something that works "out of the box", like the JetBrains IDEs.
And VS Code is not only similar to Chrome, it is Chrome pretending to be an IDE, and that always leaves a nagging feeling of inefficiency in the back of my mind. The JetBrains IDEs, being Java-based (although they hide it really really well, installing their own OpenJDK-based runtime automatically), are also resource intensive, but still better than Electron...
IDEs in general tend to be resource intensive. Not necessarily because they need all those resources, but that cost of tech bloat was probably necessarily in order to let them ship to begin with. It's why back many programmers kept a text editor for smaller scripting or quick editing and only whipped up Eclipse/VS/IntelliJ when absolutely needed (ignoring the vim/emacs wizards who have dozens of plugins and get the best o both worlds).
VS Code is nice in that it strikes a good balance between a Text Editor and full blown IDE. Far from replacing the latter, but I can and have worked on medium sized projects exclusively in VS Code.
I tried to develop some C in VSCode and failed. The configuration of the build process is far from straightforward. There is no possibility to run without debug, etc.
That's really interesting. What makes VSCode's aesthetic so distinctive and appealing? As an infrequent user of it, I don't really see how it stands out. (The main things that stand out about it to me as an Emacs user is that it has pop-ups/nags/splash tabs that I have to dismiss whenever I open it.)
Not the person you were replying to but I've found VS Code treads the right line for me between editor and IDE. It feels like a text editor first and the UI is pretty similar to SumblimeText and TextMate which I used before, neither of which had much in the way of IDE features.
But I think the reason VS Code has become so popular is that along with its editor centric UI it has Emacs like extensibility. Plugins are easily written in JavaScript and it originated the Language Server Protocol which makes it possible to write language integrations in the target language.
I've not used the newer version of IntelliJ since the redesign, but I always found it somewhat overwhelming, with all this stuff which prevented me from focussing on the code I was writing. The old version had pretty poor UI performance too, whereas the VS Code UI is fast enough that I rarely notice any UI slowdown.
Nevertheless IntelliJ is pretty indispensable for Java/Kotlin development. It's code sense features are excellent and there are a lot of projects out there that don't really build except through IntelliJ's automatic Gradle setup.
FWIW the only pop-up like things I see with VS Code are extension suggestions when I open a file with a new language extension and the monthly update change logs.
I agree completely. I switch between VS Code and IntelliJ at work so I'm comfortable with both but I would also call the UI in IntelliJ overwhelming. It's covered in buttons, panels coming out in all directions, the Git UI doesn't integrate with the normal file view which makes everything feel cramped when I access it, I've got a variety of pop-ups coming up for all sorts of things, etc.
In VS Code, I usually see a file explorer, the files I have open, the Problems panel and a terminal panel. All of the other stuff is hidden behind sections that, when clicked, simply replace the file explorer. Far less visual clutter
> I've not used the newer version of IntelliJ since the redesign, but I always found it somewhat overwhelming
Complicated GUIs (most GUIs targeting 'advanced' users, IME) likewise cause sensory/attentional overload for me, as well. If an escape from that kind of design is part of what drives people to VSCode, I totally get it! For me, keybindings and a command palette (or similar) are a much more natural way to include lots of cuntionality in an app without making it overwhelming to navigate visually.
It's not obvious if you come from emacs, but the keyboard centric navigation is very different from traditional IDEs, that usually come with a wide array of buttons with weird icons at the top.
A few other aspects:
- dark mode by default
- web tech UI, not terminal
- decent looking widgets and decorations
I don't think these are the main selling points for vscode, but they do all of this better than their competitors.
You can configure it to have an extremely minimal UI. I remove the side bar and menu bar and work in Zen mode full screen. People often ask me what editor i'm using.
Different product teams work on different plugins/IDEs. Though, it's apparent that the more popular languages (Python/Java/JS/.NET/Go) get more enhancements. Makes sense for Jetbrains though because those languages provide them more revenue with a larger user base.
> Spaces, new UI project
Jetbrains Spaces is Jetbrains branching out into SaaS. The new UI work has been going on since as long as I remember. They're always tweaking the UI, but that's the norm in the industry.
That's pretty much how it's always been. If you want a Jetbrains IDE, IDEA Ultimate is the best choice, because it offers all of the exact same features. The only issue is that, let's say, if you're developing in Python, it will still give you a Javascript-centered UI, and it's really frustrating
On the other other hand, I switched from Visual Studio to Rider and it's embarrasing just how much better Rider is as a .net/C# IDE than the first party IDE. They're already so far ahead of Microsoft that "super slow" still has them doing laps about them.
Neovim plus the Rust treesitter thing is really good. Intellij has work to do before they are worth paying for. Which is great! I love competition. Kotlin is probably my favorite language to program in, but I hate how it locks you in to a single IDE.
Yeah, but sometimes I do want to search a project within 5 minutes of opening it. IntelliJ and it’s indexing, even when you had the project open 30 minutes ago, drives me crazy. Alternatives are good.
for me CLion was the revelation, and really I couldn't deliver my project if I didn't obtain it (sadly from my pocket, due to some strange software request process). It both sped up and improved my work, delivering thorough analysis of code through the lint.
However they already told in plain text that the Rust plugin will be stopped at this point of time, so this is another quite expensive (for me) tool to buy if you'd like to develop home projects or learn at home
Hopefully separate paid IDE will mean better quality integration. I for one just need trait calls, in particular Debug trait, in debugger expression evaluation and they can have my money.
The only thing I think I’d even want changed with PyCharm is better Copilot integration and time-travel debugging. Other than that I’d actually prefer that it doesnt change.
