Anatomy of an IDE

In the form of a pro/con list, as derived from @munificent. I’d wanted to start one of the these, and @munificent’s is a good bootstrap.

Platform

• cloud-hosted / web-based / browser-based
• locally installable
• language-server driven
• language-specific IDE.

Your IDE will not succeed. Here is why it will not succeed.

Adoption misconceptions

• Syntax highlighting is what makes programming difficult
• Garbage collection is free
• Computers have infinite memory
• Nobody really needs:
  • a REPL
  • debugger support
  • a local filesystem
  • to interact with code not written in your IDE’s preferred language
• The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
• Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
• Convincing programmers to adopt a new IDE will be easy
• Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
• Programmers tolerate learning new keybindings
• There is only one operating system and it is
  • OS X
  • Windows
  • Linux
  • iOS
  • Android
  • the DOM

Feature Opinionations, or Misses

• vi keybindings
• emacs keybindings
• Syntax highlighting
• User-configurable indentation
• Macros
  • Written in JavaScript
    • but only JSON
  • Written in a scripting language you made up
    • which is a Lisp
• A windowing system
• Version control
  • Only using git
  • only using github.com
  • not using git
  • using an RCS of your own devising
• Its own platform-independent look-and-feel
  • that was designed by a programmer
  • based on yesterday’s design fads
  • applied inconsistently
• A look and feel specific to one operating system
  • that was last widely used in 1989
  • and was known to cause seizures

Heuristic Dispositions

• Programmers should not need to understand CSS to change their font
• The most significant program written using your IDE is itself
• The most significant program written using your IDE isn’t even itself
• Graphical programming presumes programmers can draw pictures better than they can type words
• The implementation is closed-source
  • covered by patents
  • not owned by you
• The DOM is not an application framework
• The name of your IDE makes it impossible to find on Google
• Your IDE assumes JavaScript can be made infinitely fast
• You seem to think static analysis is worthless
• JavaScript is not faster than C, C++, or Java
• The DOM is not a windowing framework
• It crashes on any file larger than 32k
• You provide no way for users to run the program they are editing
• You require the user to check in code before it can be run
• The IDE crashes if you look at it funny
• You don’t seem to understand basic optimization techniques
• You think a single string is an acceptable data type for a text editor

Marketing Missteps

• Unsupported claims of increased productivity
• Unsupported claims of greater “ease of use”
• Obviously faked screenshots
• No one really believes that your IDE is faster than:
  • vi
  • emacs
  • Eclipse
  • Visual Studio
  • IntelliJ
  • Notepad
• Rejection of orthodox user interface design without justification
• Rejection of usability principles without justification
• Rejection of established platform conventions without justification
• Rejection of basic user interaction without justification

Comparisons

• Your example workflow would be one key command in: ___________
• We already have an IDE in the browser
• We already have an IDE that can be scripted using
  • Python
  • JavaScript
  • A Lisp
  • Lua
• You have reinvented vi but worse
• You have reinvented emacs but worse
• You have reinvented TextMate but worse
• You have reinvented Eclipse but worse
• You have reinvented Notepad but worse
• You have reinvented Notebad better, but that’s still no justification
• You have reinvented ed but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:

• You have some interesting ideas, but this won’t fly.
• This is a bad IDE, and you should feel bad for creating it.
• Programming in this IDE is an adequate punishment for inventing it.