I mean, it is not embarrassing for you. In the browser, the CSS’s “native platform”, you add classes, via the JavaScript API, without the dot. It’s not a stupid assumption.

To have to add the dot in the CSS class name seems a bit of an oversight in the gtkrs API.

Actual programmer

I wonder if JJ anonymous branches would be something that solves this. I’ve only read about it, have not used JJ yet.

Or meet old ideological dogs like me :P

Much better integrated refactoring support. Much better source code integration support. Much better integrated debugging support. Much better integrated assistive (but not ai) support.

Vscode can do many things IntelliJ can, but not all, and many of them require fiddling with plugins.

Usually, JB is also faster (if your dev machine can run it, but in my experience most devs have beefy machines).

Zed is also lightspeed fast compared to either vscode or JetBrains’ stuff.

I would expect it to rise. I still think it’s worth it, if it’s a good tool for you. IntelliJ is really a good product, even if they do have their downsides. In a commercial environment, it’s totally worth it to buy a licence per developer, if it makes them more productive.

I don’t mind paying for tools that help me do my job. For several years I even had a personal licence for “all products pack” thing. Their IDEs do a decent job.

There are better tools for specific things, but overall as an IDE, it’s pretty good and makes you effective. And especially if you have to use Windows, it’s integrating enough tools that you don’t have to mess with the Windows crappy tooling that often.

That said, it’s still a big fat slow IDE. For a while now I’ve been using neovim my modernized Linux toolkit and for the most part, I’m happier with it then I was with IntelliJ and Goland and the rest. Happier enough to not having a licence for JetBrains any more.

And recently I’ve looked into Zed. Zed looks pretty neat so far, but it’s still under development. Once things stabilise there, I might commit to it and switch full time to Zed. It’s got a few nice things that I miss from IntelliJ, but it’s way, way more responsive.

Back on topic: I wanted to say I don’t mind paying for IDEs, if they’re good tools. But this is more of an ideological challenge and I’m always trying to keep myself from overreacting. So while I don’t agree with you in general (“don’t trust paid IDEs”), I might agree with you specifically (“don’t fall for JetBrains’ lure and Microsoft-like tactics”).

JetBrains git integration is a known mess, true.

Even this is forum-like though. It’s a forum of people talking about a topic that interests them. It just happens to be distributed.

Since when do Unix tools output 3,000 word long usage info? Even GNU tools don’t even come close…

[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man grep | wc -w
4297
[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man man | wc -w
4697
[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ 

I’ve ran into Drone CI about a year ago and I like it. I wanted to self-host something simple next to my gitea instance, and after a few hours I had it mostly set up. And in the course of a week I had it all figured out, I don’t bother with it any more.

It’s basically hands-free operation the way I have it set up, works with my gitea as said so I’m happy.

I wanted to suggest something like this. Code-freeze wise, you can have a “minor” and “major” problems, major problems block the feature, minor ones let it go (but you now have a tech debt, and make sure that THIS process to fixing up found issues is higher-prio then new features). Of course, you decide what is minor and what major. E.g. maybe a typo in the UI is acceptable, maybe not.

As for throwing features over the wall - I would actually suggest just changing the perspective - make QA involved earlier. The feature is not ready and not frozen unless it’s been looked at by QA. Then when a thing is frozen, it’s really ready. (Of course you’ll still have regressions etc but that’s another topic.)