Wow, this really sucks. With all the money flocking to companies that trained LLMs on stolen data, we may lose the only set of IDEs that offer high quality professional development tools
I'm surprised that the word "only" still applies. I have my laments about JB (PyCharm / RR): Mainly centered around performance. Yet it has no competition! Whenever I read about VsCode, or Zed as alternatives, I feel disbelief, as they're not in the same league.
Zed in particular, from the way it was described upon release, sounded like it should have been a JB competitor. Reality: It can't even move functions or structs!
I love JetBrains. For many years I was a happy subscriber to the All Products Pack, paid for out of my own pocket. I would have said that you'd have to pry my JetBrains from my cold, dead hands.
A year or two ago, I finally gave up:
1. The IDE was simply too slow - notably slower and "heavier" than VS Code in particular - and it seemed to regularly get slower.
2. Bugs - from the complex (TypeScript constructs that tsc itself handles just fine while WebStorm's code analysis kept throwing false positives on) to the trivial and silly (failing to properly handle the <col> tag in React), and often staying open for years.
Meanwhile, VS Code just kept getting better, addressing the complaints I had with it while staying fast.
I work almost exclusively in TypeScript these days; as other commenters pointed out, I'm sure that JetBrains products are still great for other languages.
And their refactoring tools remain second to none. I'm profoundly disappointed in our industry that the VS Code developers apparently looked at JetBrains, with its arsenal of expertly crafted, deterministic, testable refactorings, and said, "Nope, we'd rather make everyone use inherently random language models for anything more complex than Rename Symbol."
They have made a fair bit of improvements, as performance was a big complaint. It's still not perfect, but VSCode also isn't nearly as powerful in my experience and needs a million plugins to match basic features.
IMO it's an overengineered sloppy mess. It adds too many bells and whistles without taking away anything. Nul checking is about the only serious feature it has. The rest is chrome and bling. It's "ricer" Java.
Reading Jetbrains' EULA makes me think it would be an easier read if they just listed the entities they would NOT share your data with.
vscodium[0] might require some aftermarket bells and whistles to reach feature parity with jetbrains' "swiss army kitchen sink" approach but at least vscodium is not data-mining me.
It's not even close. vscode can approximate JB IDEs but that takes pulling in plugins on your own, managing their configuration, and adapting when the setup inevitably breaks. JB IDEs bake in everything you can get via vscode plugins with documentation, a cohesive experience, and regular maintenance to keep them working for you. Concrete examples that are better in JB land for me: git conflict resolution, refactoring (in numerous ways), jumping to definitions, finding usages (especially on Python projects).
That's always been my experience. Not even close. One gives you legos that lets you make a plastic toy, and the other is an industrial machine shop for code.
I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though.
> I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though.
Likewise (Same with zed). I've given them a thorough try several times, assuming I was holding it wrong as you say based on conversations with others who use them effectively. I've reached the conclusion you say here each time.
Code intelligence (find usages, go to definition, refactor/rename/move, etc.) and debugging are on another level - more powerful, more reliable, with more edge-cases covered.
At least, that was so in dynamic languages, like Python, and PHP, last I checked.
For dotnet, Rider runs rings around VSCode. Even using the Resharper plugin, VSCode is nowhere near the same functionality. I even use Rider above Visual Studio because it works way better for mobile and cross platform. VSCode runs okay on the same hardware as Rider, but it is all too manual to configure. VS2026 is a horrible bloated pig that constantly grinds to a halt on the same hardware.
When have you tried VS last? Since they went multi core, it’s usually very fast and it’s mostly R# slowing it down (though I read that improved, dunno).
VS2026, "August 2026 feature update" is installed apparently. Even without Resharper, it is not as fast as Rider, and Rider build speeds up MAUI build and deploy by at least 50%
There are even areas in which some of those best IntelliJ IDEs.
One such thing that Xcode has that IntelliJ doesn’t is per-pane history. In Xcode hitting back/forward navigates history for your focused editor pane whereas IntelliJ’s navigates history across all editor panes.
This might sound like a minor difference, but Xcode’s way gets me to where I want to go more quickly most of the time because I’m not having to wade through the likely-irrelevant history of the other panes. It’s a frequent frustration whenever I have to use an IntelliJ IDE.
I tend to split panes by functional role, so for example in one pane I might be jumping through view code while in the other I might be working with view models. It’s not helpful to bounce me up and down the editing history of the view model file to the right when the intention is to quickly jump though view file history on the left (or vice versa).
The best thing to do would be to make it a checkbox, like IntelliJ does for almost everything else, but not that for some reason.
Another example, it took several years for JetBrains to add mixed language JNI debugging in IntelliJ, between Java and C, C++. Something that Eclipse and Netbeans were already doing in 2005.
Just feels like they've been making all the wrong decisions. Quality has been really lackluster, and their attempts to hop onto the AI train have been as annoying as they have been bad. CoPilot sucked. Their own AI coding models suck.
The redesign they've gone for also seems like a supremely weird choice. It's like they're trying to be more like VS Code, when their probably biggest selling point was that unlike VS Code, they offered a full and traditional IDE experience.
Their trajectory has been a deeply questionable mix of change for the sake of change and nervously doing what everyone else is doing.
Mostly constrained to a single ecosystem and dev/deployment platform - a platform that has never been particularly great for development and has been made vastly less so in the recent years.
Happy to hate on MS as much as the next guy but VSCode is pretty much the Chrome of the IDE world at this point, that might be what parent was alluding to (since I'd struggle to defend any other Microsoft software).
It's got an editor, a debugger, code intelligence, a debugger, terminal, task running, test explorer, refactoring tools, project management, and so on. What's an IDE if not a text editor with bells and whistles?
It's almost as if a company can have good and bad products...
Microsoft has had a very long reputation (for good reason) for having good developer tooling, even if Windows was not particularly developer friendly...
Their entire business model is targeted ads and selling overpriced linkedin premium to thought-leader wannabes. If they lose the ads surface, they are dead in the water, so it makes sense to block headless experiences at all cost
I would have thought they would make more money from premium for recruiters. Although there's probably a similar dynamic, what does a recruiter have to do if candidates can automatically discover all job openings?
I could have built a command in my Google home speaker to order me a pizza ten years ago. I couldn't do it because.... Ads or whatever.
An agent isn't going to cut it for the same reason.
Ads are not their entire business model. LinkedIn Sales Navigator is used heavily by recruiters and sales teams. They pay more than Premium for this service.
HN is an ad platform - it's just maintaining the old style of providing actual value to bribe users into accepting the occasional ad organically, instead of min-maxing for engagement and providing nothing else.
Mentioning LessWrong and 4chan in the same breath made me chuckle, but it's actually a good summary of the modern Internet: to be ad-free, you need to either care very much, or simply not care at all. The middle of the road has been bought, fenced, and you need to pay (with money or attention) to access it.
The market being what it is, I took a job in ColdFusion last year.
There are people here who have worked in the same CF codebase for over twenty years. They might start and finish their careers in a language everyone else forgot about decades ago.
I think Ruby has enough momentum that career Rubyists will have a home for as long as they want one.
The foundations yes, the rest only if you never change between RDMS products.
On my 50s, learnt SQL around 1996, have used SQL across Access, Informix, DB2, Sybase SQL Server, MS SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres, PrestoDB, Neo4j.
They’ll be getting nervous too at some point the agentic port will come for cobol. The past hesitation and risk aversion will subside once the less risky stuff is addressed. Once someone big enough sets a precedent, it will gain momentum
Are you doing less work now because of AI? Not sure about you, but I'm doing a lot more work. Not saying I like doing more, or how it's getting done, but nonetheless I don't feel like AI is doing what the CEOs of AI labs want to convince everyone of.
100% in real life where everyone has an AI there are new problems to deal with. There's a lot of correcting AI slop code. There's a lot of having to read AI generated slop docs and posts and PR comments. There's a lot of evals for large AI agent chains and prompts, etc.
A big issue with non-remote is access to opportunities. A lot of organizations don't have offices everywhere, and I having to relocate every time there's a job change is absurd.
For what it’s worth having to relocate for work if the new work isn’t local has been the norm for like 10000+ years. I’m not sure it’s absurd, but it is a trade off.
It may have been the normal before we had the technology to remove that need. Obviously it may be the normal for certain types of work still, but I don't see why it needs to be that way for office work. This ends up greatly affecting housing markets too and making life more expensive for everyone.
The insurance companies had substantial input to the specific text of the ACA. I'm not sure how you can imply the ACA was not a BigCorp bill when BigCorp wrote it.
It's also well known from leaks that the first Obama administration selected his cabinet using recommendations from Citigroup.
