Having also used Eclipse, I strongly disagree about its superiority; If it is popular, then I believe that is explained by its price and the self-sustaining property of ubiquity.
I myself found Eclipse cumbersome and lacking in capacity. I do respect others' preference for it, but it cannot be said to be objectively superior.
Agreed. Started with Eclipse, then Netbeans, now IntelliJ. Cumbersome seems like a good description for Eclipse.
I love the ease with which you can reconfigure the layout from task to task with IntelliJ. "Distraction Free" mode shows that they "get" what bugs many people about IDEs sucking up screen space for very little in some cases.
As someone who grew up in my Java career on Eclipse, have had a paid IntelliJ license and then started using Netbeans despite all warnings against it I strongly encourage everyone to at least try Netbeans on their own.
Main benefits:
- The whole thing is free. No pro or enterprise version. (That said this isn't cheapness on my side: I can have an IntelliJ license any day I ask my boss as he is an incurable fan. For me it is enough to fix his IntelliJ once in a while. ;-)
- Happily uses Maven poms as project models. No more problems with out of sync IDE configs. What builds on the build server is exactly what I see in the Project view.
- Standard keybindings follows modern OS conventions and you can switch to Eclipse or IntelliJ keybindings in options if you want.
- Doesn't scare noobs the way eclipse does. Not a problem for me, I used to love eclipse, but for a team lead this might be an advantage.
I don't know about Eclipse being better. I switched to IntelliJ two years ago and I love it. I find it much better, faster and less buggy compared to Eclipse.
You are right. That's probably something that would be useful to home users as well. That said, the in-place upgrade to Pro is quite easy in Windows since Vista. In Windows 10 you simply buy it from the Store.
That's a very good question. Amazon has gone through similar periods where the thesis to not invest has almost always been "they don't make any money" (something that would have cost you roughly a 25x gain since 2008). The hate seems to happen when a) there's a disjunction between market cap and a traditional reading of the balance sheet, b) that difference is due to some poorly understood measure of value that isn't directly captured in traditional financial metrics, c) people either don't see the strategy or are comparing apples to oranges but thinking they're comparing apples to apples.
Mostly it seems to be comparing Twitter's numbers with Facebook's, and assuming there is 100% overlap between the two companies in terms of niche. This could be an error of putting Twitter in the wrong category. Maybe they should be compared to media companies, not social networks? Maybe by those measures they are doing just fine?
> "Amazon has gone through similar periods where the thesis to not invest has almost always been "they don't make any money""
Amazon didn't make money because they had tremendous capital expenditures but they had amazing cashflow and revenues. Twitter has none of these. There is no comparison at all.
> "Mostly it seems to be comparing Twitter's numbers with Facebook's, and assuming there is 100% overlap between the two companies in terms of niche."
Totally false, the criticism is that Twitter has turned away from what made them unique and tried to do things like Facebook. All the while Facebook stole their good ideas while Twitter sat on them doing nothing.
I don't know if it's bias I've seen. A lot of talk about how no one was going to buy them for what they wanted (which turned out to be true) and a sense that the product has peaked which could very well be true if competitors eat into their use case.
Incorrect. Eclipse remains superior and is in far greater use across the world and the enterprise landscape.