> Coming from the perspective of an eclipse fan, why is VS code the defacto answer nowadays?
Is eclipse good now? I used it 15 years ago. It took ages to start. It was a memory hog and it was dog slow besides. My entire team got RAM upgrades on our computers because the default company issued machines (which were quite good at the time) didn't have enough RAM to use eclipse properly.
This is exactly what I was going to say. I used eclipse in college when learning Java. Back then it was bloated, slow, had really bad UX, and would occasionally crash for no reason I could ascertain (I was just doing basic school projects. Linked lists, binary search trees, etc...)
VS Code, although it is starting to go get a bit bloated, has always been extremely responsive and snappy. Yeah I've had it crash, but I was never surprised that it crashed. (e.g. opening enormous files, running several instances at once with tons of tabs open, long debugging sessions, etc...)
Definitely, it has been at least a decade since I had plugins corrupt my workspace, and there are old Reddit comments of me complaining about in on /r/java.
Load VSCode with the same amount of plugins, each requiring its own process, to see how "fast" it runs, not to mention Electron crap, there is a reason so many Microsoft plugins are actually written in C++ and Rust.
> It took ages to start. It was a memory hog and it was dog slow besides. My entire team got RAM upgrades
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I used to use VS Code on some very large C projects with 16GB of RAM, and my machine would grind to a halt while intellisense was indexing.
How much ram did you have, and when was this? I remember being extremely happy with Eclipse on an 8GB machine - this was back in the jvm7 days. Heck, I did jvm6 development with Eclipse on Windows XP with 4GB of ram and was content.
Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.
For years and years I had people telling me how great IntelliJ was, etc. I eventually switched - lo and behold, IntelliJ had just as many quirks (even some of the same) as Eclipse.
It was 2010. Our default work machines had 16gb of ram. Eclipse ran, but it was tight. Especially while debugging. Some developers also apparently liked to open a second eclipse instance for some reason. You'd go OOM pulling stunts like that.
They upgraded all of us to 32gb. 32gb doesn't sound like a lot of ram now, but in 2010 it seemed pretty wild to me. Especially for just running an IDE.
In eclipse's defence, we were working on a very large java codebase. But that shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. I've never seen a java codebase come in any other size.
I'm running intellij (RustRover) right now, and its sitting on about 4.5gb of ram. That still seems very inefficient to me. But it doesn't sound that bad compared to eclipse.
At this time laptops still could have memory upgrades, and memory was pretty cheap compared to today. The first thing I did when I bought a new laptop was buying two 8GB SoDIMMs, it was way cheaper than ordering the upgrade from factory.
The thing is, memory in personal computer have plateaued for quite some time. 16GB was not uncommon in 2010. Things are not like the crazy 90s and early 2000s where PC configuration become obsolete in less than two years.
That seems incredible. 16GB of ram to run (presumably windows 10) and Eclipse?
Eclipse, unlike IntelliJ offers "project" view were you have have many "solutions" open at once. Even with multiple Eclipse instances open, it's hard to imagine it consuming so much ram.
Perhaps you had other company-required software running. I was working on relatively largeish codebases and very happy with 8GB of ram until 2018ish.
Regardless, an IDE is more than a text editor, so your claim that RustRover with 4.5GB of ram is inefficient is misguided.
>They upgraded all of us to 32gb. 32gb doesn't sound like a lot of ram now, but in 2010 it seemed pretty wild to me. Especially for just running an IDE.
Funny thing, memory was cheaper, and machines were upgradeable. People used to buy low memory machines and upgrade them with after market memory to avoid paying DELL or Apple's memory upgrade tax.
That's an absurd comparison, and you know it. Until an IDE actually performs some task that requires more advanced functionality, like analyzing a complex existing project to open without anything cached, compiling, profiling, etc. it is literally just editing text files. The only IDE that I use that takes anywhere CLOSE to the amount of time that Eclipse does to get moving is Unreal Engine. Any Jetbrains IDE, X Code, Visual Studio... all blow it away. I just opened a project in Visual Studio 2022 on a portability-focused laptop from 2018-- from click to the project open screen, it was about 3 seconds. From the project open screen to having an existing project completely open, it was 3 or so more seconds. On an 8 year old, tiny, not-optimized windows laptop.
I remember the first thing you had to do with eclipse was increase the memory limit so the obese hog called JVM could have barely enough room to wiggle around.
> Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.
My first IDE was Turbo Pascal 2.0, about 20 years before I used Eclipse, and I used a lot in between (and since). Eclipse was the single most unintuitive, user hostile, clunky, slow, and painful system to use. A few of those problems probably would have been a little bit less noticeable on a ridiculously high-end machine, but not all of them, and other contemporary IDEs worked well-enough on lighter machines. And despite how much I disliked using Eclipse, I liked the idea of Eclipse, and kept it around because it was, for a while, occupying the niche of “extensible open source platform most popular to target for interesting dev tools” (because there weren't really any alternatives that were as open and extensible).
I used eclipse in university around that time (2005), then first switched to netbeans which I already liked more, then discovered IntelliJ and have been using that ever since. Everything about Eclipse felt worse in ways neither of the others did, but all of that was still during university (though I now use JetBrains professionally).
Todays hard drives are faster then memory was back then, so it's probably not an issue now. Could probably reparse your entire code base at every key stroke without you noticing.
Modern PCIe NVME drives typically see a few microsecond latency, but even DDR2 latency was around 10 nanoseconds. Memory remains top dog by a long shot.
We used to have a custom Eclipse-derived tool for embedded development, and it sucked. Poor performance, crashy, difficult to build and debug. VS code is just lighter. As well as feeling more "modern", simply due to being built with the prejudices of the mid-2010s rather than the late 90s. Eclipse 1.0 was in 2001!
I switched to VSCode because it has a free editor with a really great jump to file hotkey.
I remember when the big VS added jump to file but it was so damn miserably implemented as to be useless.
Having worked at Microsoft for a decade, the most frequent way I navigated a large source tree was dir /s *partialfilename*.*
Then again while I was there, most code bases couldn't even open in Visual Studio. (highly team dependent, I was mostly on older C/C++ code bases.)
Some teams at MS paid for an editor called Source Insight, which indexed your code and could also parse C #defines and other preprocessor macros, which was super unique and powerful. It had an incredibly powerful symbol and fuzzy filename search capabilities, I'd frequently have Source Insight open just so I could find where in a folder structure a file was and then I'd open it up in my preferred editor.
Back when I got my first SSD the largest boost to my dev productivity was not in compile times (large C++ code bases tend to template bound more so than IO bound), it was how fast I could find files in the directory structure.
I'm sure Vi/Emacs users have some magic set of plugins that do all of this for them, but as someone back on Windows back in the 2000s and 2010s, the supported MS tooling was horrible at all this.
Then VS Code comes along with amazing fuzzy file name matching. Holy cow. Sure it is missing 90% of the power of real Visual Studio (being able to have a debugger step from front end web code to your backend and then into stored procedures in SQL, running on a remote machine, that your debugger transparently auth'd to, is something Microsoft had working 20 years ago and would be considered impossible dark magic with today's tooling), but wow can I navigate a project quickly!
Site license to source insight was something I missed badly after Microsoft. Bought my own copy. It did wonders when looking at Snowflake monorepo, which was otherwise impossible to understand . Great piece of software, still going strong too.
Same here! Easily jumping between files is one of the best features. I always have VS and vscode open simultaneously, doing about 99% of the work in vscode and only using VS to compile and to debug.
Eclipse is not safer it just has fewer people looking for holes in it. The problem is not the software but how we trust code from the internet. Even if you used Eclipse a fake recruiter could still trick you into running a bad script. We cannot fix social engineering by changing the text editor.
For me vscode is super-lightweight and at the same time has enough functionality. I didn't use Eclipse for many years, but from my memory it was super-heavyweight. And it didn't really support anything except Java.
Interestingly Java is the only language that I've found vscode support poor, so I keep buying Idea license exclusively for Java projects. For rest of languages that I use (JS/TS, Go, Python, Shell, YAML, XML) I'm using vscode and happy about it.
In recent years vscode starting to get bloated, mostly with AI stuff. But so far I can disable everything AI with a single setting and it works good afterwards. I'd prefer for all AI features to be contained in a separate plugin that I can just not install, but I guess managers these days want to shove AI in everyone's throat.
Another good thing about vscode is that its written with JavaScript and can be launched in browser, so in the future I want to put my development environment in the browser, but so far I didn't do that.
Or with most language specific extensions disabled by default.
I almost disable all extensions except the ones I use all the time. Then I enable specific ones at workspace level.
Yes, it's annoying. But as an extension author, I know how some badly written extension can significantly slow down the experience, both during startup and editing. I even profiled other people's extensions and submitted feedback.
Load time is in seconds, even with the program cached. I can still load vim with a ton of plugins[0] and still load a project in a few hundred milliseconds.
Maybe VS Code is faster with fewer plugins but it's still "dog slow" to load and run. Only thing I'm "missing" in vim is the bloat
[0] personal I only use a handful but I've played around because why not
With LazyVim (requires NeoVim) and its load-on-demand architecture, startup time usually stays below 50 milliseconds even with a ton of plugins. Below 50ms is fast enough that it feels instant. Aliasing `nvim` to `n` in my ~/.bash_aliases just makes it even faster. cd to a project directory, run `n .` and I'm looking at the NeoVim file explorer plugin for that project directory. No break in thought flow, no standing up to get coffee while the IDE loads, just keep going.
Your focus on startup speed feels really alien to me. When working on a project I just keep vscode open. I reboot maybe once a week and starting vscode again takes about a second, and then maybe 10s of seconds of background processing, depending on the project size, for the language server to become fully operational. That's more than good enough for me.
I've done a lot of shell-driven development in the 00s though, and I remember it did involve frequently firing up vim instances for editing just a single file. I no longer understand the appeal of that approach. Navigating between files (using fuzzy search or go-to-definition) is just a lot faster and more convenient.
> starting vscode again takes about a second, and then maybe 10s of seconds of background processing
Yet I'm doing the same thing instantly or near instantly.
I don't reboot often and I'm still lazy and will leave projects open often, but honestly, have you considered that your workflow is an adaptation to the wait time?
> Navigating between files (using fuzzy search or go-to-definition) is just a lot faster and more convenient.
I agree? But why do you think people don't fuzzy search in vim? Or the terminal? There's been tools to do this for a very long time. Fzf is over a decade old and wasn't the first
If you're using vim as an IDE (which is if course perfectly doable), then why does it matter if startup time is 50 or 1000 ms. You typically leave them running.
> Yet I'm doing the same thing instantly or near instantly.
Does vim somehow allow LSP servers to index faster? Or are you not actually doing the same thing?
Why are you leaving them running? Because they are slow to load?
Yes, Neovim supports LSP and it is very very fast.
I'm not sure why any of this is surprising. We're talking about the same company who is speeding up their file browser by loading it at boot time rather than actually trying to fix the actual fucking problems. Why is it surprising that everything else they make is slow and bloated as shit (even more as they've shoving AI into everything)
The point of LSP is that neovim is using the same servers for this as vscode. So I guess you work on smaller projects or with languages that have faster (usually meaning less fully featured) LSP servers.
LazyVim includes a bunch of pre-configured plugins that turn NeoVim into an IDE. Fuzzy search by filename, search by text, file explorer, go to definition, go to reference... Even debugging and unit test runners, it's all there. Yet when I'm at the command line and I need to make a quick edit to one file, e.g. `nvim ~/.bashrc`, I don't pay the startup cost of waiting for 50 plugins I'm not going to use. So it's the best of both worlds.
>>Load time is in seconds, even with the program cached.
Are you like, for real? How often do you load it up for it to matter in the slightest? Do you not just open the project once at the start of the day and then continue working?
Sorry but for someone used to working in VS proper and projects which take minimum 40 minutes to build, saying that a startup time of a few seconds is a problem is.....just hard to understand.
I live in the terminal and opening files with vim is the primary way I interact with them.
> Do you not just open the project once at the start of the day and then continue working?
I mean I do this too
> projects which take minimum 40 minutes to build
This sounds problematic and a whole different category of problems.
Don't you have partial compiles? Parallel compiling? Upgrade your machine?
But it's not just startup time. I use less RAM, less CPU resources, jumping through tags is instant, working through the debugger is instant, opening new files is instant, fuzzy searching my system is instant. It sounds like the program you're working on and your editor are fighting for resources and I've never faced that problem with vim
>>Don't you have partial compiles? Parallel compiling?
We do. Without it it it takes over 3 hours for a full project build. Normally if I change one line of code and hit "run" it takes ~10-15 minutes for the app to start, depending on which file I changed.
>>Upgrade your machine?
It's a 64 core/128 thread core Threadripper workstation with 256GB of ram, so not many upgrade options from that.
It's a huge C++ project, heavily templated, that's kinda normal. My previous 2 projects were also like this.
Lol this isn't unique nor out of the norm - most big C++ projects are like this, and certainly every one in my industry(video games), unless you're trying to make an argument that C++ is somehow not commonly used. I even worked on a small indie game in C++ and it took 5 minutes minimum to compile.
C++ is common, but game programming definitely isn't the norm.
And 5 min is very different from 40 mins. Don't pretend a factor of 8 isn't insignificant
I've also worked on systems which are entirely written with template metaprogramming. This is definitely not the norm. Though that code was highly focused on optimization, as we were writing for HPC environments (extremely heterogeneous hardware). Sure, a full compile could take quite some time but doing a full compile, or even compiling a decent portion, when developing would be insane. A partial compile of a few minutes usually meant my time was better spent mucking about with the cmake and build files because incremental testing sped up development and your PRs aren't going to be merged quickly if they take an hour to verify if they even compile.
>>C++ is common, but game programming definitely isn't the norm.
I mean, last time I checked there are hundreds of thousands of programmers working in this industry, and video games are a bigger industry than movies. What's not the norm about it, exactly? I imagine there's more programmers out there making video games than making accounting software, for example.
>>And 5 min is very different from 40 mins. Don't pretend a factor of 8 isn't insignificant
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Did I ever imply otherwise? Maybe let me say it again, clearer - so far I worked at 2 big AAA studios, on 5 big AAA franchises, in 4 different engines. All 5 of those had those multi-hour compilation times unless you used something like Incredibuild or Fastbuild, and every single one of them had a startup of around 10+ minutes if you made any change to the code at all, just for VS to finish compilation and linking. I also worked at a small indie studio, with its own C++ engine, we had maybe...200 files max? That project took 5 minutes to build. Don't know where you got the idea that I'm saying factor of 8 is insignificant.
>> your PRs aren't going to be merged quickly if they take an hour to verify if they even compile.
Hmm at the current project the time from me submitting a change to it actually being accepted is ~6 hours. On my previous projects I think the fastest I've seen has been around an hour for a very very quick preflight. But then all the tests also have to pass which takes a lot of time.
>>ure, a full compile could take quite some time but doing a full compile, or even compiling a decent portion, when developing would be insane.
Right, but you have to do this at least once when you get latest, normally in the morning I grab latest and have to build around ~9000 files. If I make a change in the gameplay code it might have to recompile ~200-300 files because of the dependencies on all the associated systems.
Seems very odd to me that someplace would force the use of a particular development tool. I've seen it only one time while interviewing, where they wanted everyone to have identical setups so they could easily hop onto each others computers when needed... it was weird and I took it as a red flag and didn't follow through them them.
Some software development workflows require specific tooling, with complex setups. While it may be possible to do with other tools, it's often very difficult, and not really worth the trouble when there is a known working setup. It's easier to onboard new people if they use the established toolchain with known working configs. I worked at a place once where it took several days to get the dev environment set up. It would have taken far longer if someone wanted to use whatever random tool they'd prefer to use.
If you code in embedded systems or FPGA its very common since you are using very specific vendor tools. A lot of enterprise companies have a "one way" kind of philosophy as well, they lock down the systems so much "for security" that you might not be able to install anything other than Eclipse or whatever is approved.
Wanting to be able to use anybody's machine is very strange, agreed.
From a support/IT perspective though, the closer everybody's machine is, the easier the job is.
The last software shop I worked at, we had a default set of tools and configs. It was a known happy path. You were allowed to adventure off of that path, but you were mostly on your own.
Devcontainers[1] or some similar technology are a must. Use whatever specific IDE you want, but the development environment itself should be identical across everyone on the team.
No more "works on my computer" issues. The environment is always identical.
> Wanting to be able to use anybody's machine is very strange, agreed.
Very useful if people are struggling to create reliable repro steps that work for me - I can simply debug in situ on their machine. Also useful if a coworker is struggling to figure something out, and wants a second set of eyes on something that's driving them batty - I can simply do that without needing to ramp up on an unfamiliar toolset. Ever debugged a codegen issue that you couldn't repro, that turned out to be a compiler bug, that you didn't see because you (and the build servers) were on a different version? I have. There are ways to e.g. configure Visual Studio's updater to install the same version for the entire studio, which would've eliminated some of the "works on my machine" dance, but it's a headache. When a coworker shows me a cool non-default thing they've added a key binding for? I'll ask what key(s) they've bound it to if they didn't share it, so we share the same muscle memory.
It's quite common if you work in a team of engineers, or in a large company with many engineers.
Having consistent machine and OS and app configurations enables better (lower cost, higher reliability) scripting and tooling solutions in things like repos and infrastructure.
Not unlike consistency in language and compiler choices.
Having a consistent setup makes it easier for your organization's IT team to support you, troubleshoot issues, etc. It also makes it easier for you to collaborate with other members of your team, or even other teams. If your coworker Fred comes to you asking for help on how to refactor something, for instance, it will go much more easily if you're running the same IDE with the same refactoring tools.
Organizations establish and enforce standards for a reason.
I don't really like VS Code either, but I personally use it because I tend to jump between a half-dozen semi-obscure languages, and VS Code is the only [0] editor that supports all of them.
[0]: Vim and Emacs have almost as good or slightly better language support, but I prefer GUIs over TUIs.
Eclipse was always a confusing product. It was a bastard child of Visual Age for Java from IBM, which was already a bastard of IBM's Visual Age for Smalltalk.
Visual Age for Java had some quirkiness being a Smalltalk IDE adapted to Java development (for example, the concept of a file and a hierarchical filesystem itself was definitely a second class citizen in Visual Age) and eclipse kind of rounded those rough edges.
But Eclipse became a victim of late 90s/early 2000s academic driven overengineering with overly complex/bureaucratic stuff like OSGI, and the support for the absurdly bureaucratic java development ecosystem at that time.
Never liked Eclipse, but I’ve been forced to use VSCode over my preferred JetBrains IDEs because it is the only modern mainstream editor with a competent client-server mode. As in, actually rendering the UI locally while doing all the code indexing and intelligence on the server. Corporate world would much rather maintain disposable remote VMs than help you unfuck your laptop after whatever required security upgrade installs the wrong version of a scripting language and sends everything to hell.
It’s not as dumb a client as VNC, but it’s close. Basic operations like typing and scrolling will stutter and lag if your connection is less than perfect. VSCode’s client is really VSCode from a UI perspective.
They're not using the remote VM as a server but as the development machine though. You don't want to have to git commit and push every time you need to run or even type-check your code.
I think what GP describes is actually a pretty okay solution for orgs that don't want to provider their devs with local admin privileges.
You can develop locally if you want to, and lots of people do, but it’s community support. The environment that someone else is obligated to fix for you is the remote one (which they can do by blowing away the container and then you recover your state from Git).
To myself and many others, vscode is not the defacto answer. JetBrains is. IntelliJ was miles ahead of eclipse last time I checked. Rider is miles ahead of Visual Studio. WebStorm is miles ahead of vscode for js etc.
It's not even a competition, to me. I've had to use Visual Studio instead of Rider for work the past year and it's been a very bad experience.
The biggest difference is JetBrains intellisense feels like it's reading my mind, I'll just type a couple characters and hit tab most of the time. Visual studio on the other hand has the worst intellisense I can imagine. It very frequently just messes up what I'm doing - I'll write what I want correctly, hit space and VS will just change it to something entirely different and import a package while it's at it. It's incredibly annoying. And when I actually want to use auto complete, say for example I've declared a variable on the line above and I want to use it, I'll write a couple characters and then without fail the variable I just declared on the line above is like option 6 down the list behind a bunch of crap that doesn't even make sense in the context at all. And as if it wasn't enough that the IDE is crap when it's working correctly, it very frequently craps out and just stops providing syntax highlighting and such in .razor files, or showing errors in files that compile just fine, forcing me to restart it and delete the .vs folder. Like every day.
Personally I think the only people who prefer other products than JB are people who don't know what they're missing. JB is literally just better in pretty much every way. At least the products I've used. I think I'll turn down the next job that asks me to use VS.
I’ve never written a line of Java in my life. Why would I ever use Eclipse?
VSCode is defacto standard because it’s kinda mediocre but works ok enough for every language and every platform. Microsoft created and popularized LSP so VSCode isn’t a single language IDE.
I use a mixture of code editors. My favorite is probably 10x but it only works with C++. So VSCode is just a reasonably standard unless a different editor is better for a specific use case.
The only thing that matters is extensibility/customization and speed. I want the lightest, most customizable thing that isn't emacs (for real reasons, trying to set up emacs at work is too much of pain in the ass) as my single pane of glass on any OS I care to use. If it can't do that, it doesn't live long.
Thing that IntelliJ and even NetBeans have going for them is that they seem like tools for getting work done. Eclipse puts more emphasis on being a platform which means you have to download and configure plugins just to get started. Great if you're a corporate shop with a standard setup that's force-pushed to every machine. Not so much if you're just getting started or working on side projects or in a startup, which is how languages and frameworks gain mindshare in the web era.
Visual Studio Code—I dunno. It's an editor more than an IDE. It lets Webdev Andys create an empty directory, put an index.ts in there, and get started right away. Yes, WebStorm does the same, but VS Code comes with decent multilanguage support for free. It's like vim or Emacs but crappier and more bloated, but a lot of people don't care about that.
I've also used Eclipse in the past but almost exclusively used vscode in recent years. It's just a phenomenal text editor. It's got fantastic multi-line selection and editing tools and searching for files is instant and you don't even need to be fully accurate with the filename. Nowadays I hardly ever use the sidebar to look for the file, I just type thr ctrl+e shortcut and insert several letters of the file and I instantly get the result. It's a small thing with a huge impact. VS, for comparison, lags a few seconds when searching files, and it misses files that are not imported into the workspace. That difference makes VS useless to me.
I stopped using it because none of the plugins for the languages I was using at the time (Ruby, Python, Erlang) were either worth a damn, or getting updated to track new language features.
I started using VSCode because IntelliJ-family IDEs will report incomplete search results as complete when they are rebuilding their search indices. To put it another way, they will tell you that a string that definitely appears in the project does not appear, if they haven't gotten around to re-adding the files that contain that string to the search index.
This to me is intolerable behavior. Others find it perfectly acceptable.
I bucket Eclipse under "heavyweight IDE". I used to use it, plus the CDT plugin, for my C++ nonsense.
Then Visual Studio's Express and later Community SKUs made Visual Studio free for ≈home/hobby use in the same bucket. And they're better at that bucket for my needs. Less mucking with makefiles, the mixed ability to debug mixed C# and C++ callstacks, the fact that it's the same base as my work tools (game consoles have stuff integrating with Visual Studio, GPU vendors have stuff integrating with Visual Studio, the cool 3rd party intellisense game studios like integrates with Visual Studio...)
Eclipse, at least for me, quickly became relegated to increasingly rare moments of Linux development.
But I don't always want a heavyweight IDE and it's plugins and load times and project files. For a long time I just used notepad for quick edits to text files. But that's not great if you're, say, editing a many-file script repository. You still don't want all the dead weight of a heavy weight IDE, but there's a plethora of text editors that give you tabs, and maybe some basic syntax highlighting, and that's all you were going to get anyways. Notepad++, Sublime Text, Kate, ...and Visual Studio Code.
Well, VSC grew some tricks - an extension API for debuggers, spearheading the language server protocol... heck, I eventually even stopped hating the integrated VCS tab! It grew a "lightweight IDE" bucket, and it serves that niche for me well, and that's a useful niche for me.
In doing so, it's admittedly grown away from the "simple text editor" bucket. If you're routinely doing the careful work of auditing possibly malicious repositories before touching a single build task, VSC feels like the wrong tool to me, despite measures such as introducing the concept of untrusted repositories. I've somewhat attempted to shove a round peg into a square hole by using VSC's profiles feature - I now have a "Default" profile for my coding adventures and a "Notes" profile with all the extensions gone for editing my large piles of markdown, and for inspecting code I trust enough to allow on disk, but not enough to autorun anything... but switching editors entirely might be a better use of my time for this niche.
I would say the answer is that's not the general perception of the software. I'm personally migrating out of VSCode, because having to use the OpenVSX registry to have open-source builds makes me mad (I've since migrated to Zed for now, since I've never adapted well to neovim nor emacs).
In general, I believe most people see VSCode as "good enough". Maybe not the best text editor, but it's good enough at everything it does and extensible enough to the point that there's really no point to go for anything else unless you have a really good reason to.
> Im guessing the answer is probably Java is why eclipse is out of favor.
My previous answer is thinking about editors in general. But in the case of Eclipse I'd say you're right LOL.
People forget that there was a period of time during which the Java runtime installer tried to install actual adware. You had to jump through hoops to deselect adware from being forced onto your machine, it was infuriating.
Setting up a new machine, I could choose between Eclipse (free, took forever to open, slow, asked me a million questions before it let me start working) or Visual Studio (cost money, incredibly powerful, written in C++ and was really damn fast.)
Back in 2005 it was mostly in C++ and it was blazing fast. IMHO VS 2005 was the most performant edition. I never liked VS 2003, felt bloated in comparison.
It's the license. The MIT license is what makes VSCode the defacto answer.
It also runs on the web, which makes it extremely convenient to toss into...web things. It's the code editor for the Google Cloud console, the Lambda web console, the GitHub web editor, and so on.
I'm going to guess that Eclipse doesn't have the same amount of security issues because it's not a popular target. Everyone (relatively speaking) is using VSCode or something based on it.
As I remember it, VS code was Microsoft’s response to Sublime.
Sublime was exceptionally popular for web developers throughout the 2010s.
Sublime was maintained by a single person as far as I know.
VS code was pretty much a copy of Sublime but with a much better extensions system and relatively quickly there were some great plugins that made VS code the de-facto editor for web development.
Yes, Atom was an earlier shot at building a Sublime competitor too.
I don’t know how usage of Atom compared to Sublime, but within my friends and colleagues it was only when VS code got good that people started moving away from Sublime.
I can only speak for $MY_JOB, but I'm pretty sure everyone was on Atom before VSC "got good". Atom had a good plugin ecosystem; what really drove the change was Atom's horrible performance issues whereas VSC was snappy and responsive.
What I believe also influenced the shift was that at that point in time MS had accumulated a decent amount of developer trust by giving us TypeScript and later on by acquiring GitHub. They appeared to care and have the right vision for open source.
Nope it started as a Web IDE, going against Atom was their pivot to win market share, there are a few talks from the team if you search for VSCode history.
It just happens. I was happy on netbeans, then I was forced over to eclipse, which I got used to. Then I got forced over to intellij. I'm still pissed about that (even though it's rider for me these days).
I don't mind VSCodium that much because I can put my tooling on the side (like a good unix fanboy) instead of hoping that jetbrains reimplements every other tool. Ag, grep beat IDE searches any day.
But yeah we have reach a stupid point in the industry where VSCodium asks me to trust a codebase before it will let me edit it.
I would rather solve file access at an entirely different level. A filesystem is a reasonable, editor-agnostic abstraction for this, and I can use sshfs to mount a remote directory over SSH in a way that's invisible to whatever tools I prefer to use to edit the files.
If you have a jumphost chain, you can configure that in the SSH config.
I don't know what a devcontainer is exactly, but if it's a container in the sense that it runs a Linux development system, I would investigate whether that, too, could easily be set up for access via SSH or mounted locally through some other mechanism.
File access isn't the same as tool access. You need to run tools on your ssh host as well. And a devcontainer does indeed equal a (docker) container. The name is very specific and describes shipping a full developer environments so that 'you' do not have to install gcc-toolset-15, or boost 1.83, or mold, or python 3.11, and so on.
If you did webshit in eclipse, especially with NPM involved, it would be just as bad. Running arbitrary code from a downloaded bundle seems normal in that world.
> Im guessing the answer is probably Java is why eclipse is out of favor.
I don't get the connection, but Java had log4j, i.e. a remote code execution vulnerability.
This is so insane to me. Eclipse is... Fine for Java in the sense Visual Studio is for dotnet. But man can they both be slow.
Use case depending sometimes you just need a quick editor, thats why sublime had and probably still has a huge userbase, its fast startup and flexibility. Vim, emacs and derivatives of it are the same story.
I can't imagine ever opening up eclipse to edit a zig/go/js file or project. It's too bloated.
The answer is neovim anyway. That's all anyone needs. /s
Emacs is a full IDE, not just a quick one-off editor. Its power comes from having everything scriptable from the ground up. Contrast this with the modern Extension concept, where there is a hard line between the editor's code and any changes you might want to make to its behavior.
I think vim is probably similar, but I've not gotten into it that much.
Kudzu flowers supposedly have a grape like flavor. I just had a beer made with them from fonta flora in NC and you could vaguely taste it. Although unsure if it was my imagination.
Kudzu flowers were listed as one of the possibilities in the article.
I've generally seen it for embedded systems due to smaller size and you can statically link it.
But there are some compatibility drawbacks for non musl binaries as well as source that intentionally or unintentionally relies on glibc behavior or non standard functionality.
You don't want to mix and match your libc's on a running system.
Buildroot may be a good way to start to play with musl (or uClibc, another small c library).
