If you look closely, it also says that WebStorm is not an option for me. I'm not going to pay on a subscription basis for an IDE. We talk about non-commercial tools here. And the situation there looks... grim.
Given that a commercial version of IntelliJ costs the same as WebStorm, I would argue that that is hardly a fair comparison though (and that this is more a testament to the excellent work that JetBrains puts into their IDEs)
Jetbrains products are very good, I'm not going to argue about that :) If you look for IDEs in the Java world, there is Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ Community Edition, all of which are open source and free to use. I would not even claim that any of them is strictly better than the others, there is a competition going on. I personally never felt the need for IntelliJ Ultimate. And in the web world there is WebStorm and... notmuch else?
You get paid to build software that makes other people’s jobs easier, correct? Then why balk at paying someone else for software that makes your job easier?
Carpenters don’t forge their own hammers. They go to the store and buy a quality one. It’s an investment.
Well maybe because you will actually own the hammer afterwards, rather than just renting it?
Also, in the web dev community where everything is open source, isn't it a little odd that the way tooling works is dictated by Jetbrains in a closed-source fashion? It just doesn't fit. Or maybe using an IDE is such a rare occurence in web dev that most people just don't care, and the few who do go to Jetbrains?
Which is fair enough (and your choice) but it doesn't seem fair to say there's not an IDE that does this stuff when there is (and it's very cheap). It's worth having a WebStorm subscription even if just to demonstrate that there is a market for JS IDEs
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The article seems to talk about WebStorm does this stuff and then goes on to lament how there's not a decent frontend IDE. I'm confused...
If you look closely, it also says that WebStorm is not an option for me. I'm not going to pay on a subscription basis for an IDE. We talk about non-commercial tools here. And the situation there looks... grim.
Given that a commercial version of IntelliJ costs the same as WebStorm, I would argue that that is hardly a fair comparison though (and that this is more a testament to the excellent work that JetBrains puts into their IDEs)
Jetbrains products are very good, I'm not going to argue about that :) If you look for IDEs in the Java world, there is Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ Community Edition, all of which are open source and free to use. I would not even claim that any of them is strictly better than the others, there is a competition going on. I personally never felt the need for IntelliJ Ultimate. And in the web world there is WebStorm and... notmuch else?
You get paid to build software that makes other people’s jobs easier, correct? Then why balk at paying someone else for software that makes your job easier?
Carpenters don’t forge their own hammers. They go to the store and buy a quality one. It’s an investment.
Well maybe because you will actually own the hammer afterwards, rather than just renting it?
Also, in the web dev community where everything is open source, isn't it a little odd that the way tooling works is dictated by Jetbrains in a closed-source fashion? It just doesn't fit. Or maybe using an IDE is such a rare occurence in web dev that most people just don't care, and the few who do go to Jetbrains?
Jetbrains offers a perpetual license on all their products...
Which is fair enough (and your choice) but it doesn't seem fair to say there's not an IDE that does this stuff when there is (and it's very cheap). It's worth having a WebStorm subscription even if just to demonstrate that there is a market for JS IDEs