[daltonpinto]

Of course that are good things and maybe I wrote in a too much harsh way.

Linting features and autocompletes are nice, also autocomplete features are nice to have.

The issue that I pointed mostly resonates with the idea that depending on LSP is the big issue.

I personally use Neovim with minimal stuff, I run lint and tests manually and not automatically, because it feels to me like push notifications taking my attention elsewhere, so I go to fix them later after what my intention is already expressed in code.

But agree and dyisagree that "Keeping the code organized is still good advice, but has nothing to do with using an IDE.". It should not be based on IDE, but an IDE on the hands of an inexperienced dev may lead to some comfort that should not be there.

I reviewed many code written by junior people, and very often I see people adding code in random places that later may let the application to be hard to follow and everything "seems fine" to them.

Other smell is like, but "it is so easy to rename a variables with my IDE" even though I believe that refactoring is nice to be done, but if we keep changing names so often, why don't we read the code that is being edited to understand well its intention and maybe realized that a big chunk of code should be split and the name choice will be completely distinct once proper refactor is made.

My point is not about avoid automation, is about having a dependency on that because the code is not manageable to people anymore, but manageable by automation mostly.

[raydev]

> I reviewed many code written by junior people, and very often I see people adding code in random places that later may let the application to be hard to follow and everything "seems fine" to them.

As someone who got their start in edit/Notepad, it wasn't "productivity boosts" that made me bad at code architecture when I was inexperienced.

[lttlrck]

I'd wager it wasn't the lack of "productivity boosts" either?

[scarface_74]

This reads a lot like the old assembly language programmers (I was one) who stuck their nose up at C programmers for not knowing how computers worked because it was too high level.

The entire purpose of computers is to automate things and reduce complexity

[iamwil]

There is the very real possibility that automation masks complexity, not reduce it. And that’s what he’s saying.

[scarface_74]

I used this as an example before, the AWS SDK

https://boto3.amazonaws.com/v1/documentation/api/latest/inde...

It’s the same in every supported language since it is autogenerated from service definition files. I chose the Python version because it is all on one page. Would you rather memorize thousands of functions across hundreds of classes? Should AWS “reduce complexity” by getting rid of services and functionality?

Would you rather have an auto complete IDE or have to look up the web reference?

I’m sure it’s more complex to run S3 at scale than to build out the data center I did as part of my job to store 4TB worth of data in the early 2000s.

I would much rather run a 4 line CloudFormation template and do it in less than a second over it taking months to do it in house.

I started my programming in assembly in the 80s, should we go back to that too or should we keep using compilers and interpreters?

Should we keep programming in C or should we use manages runtimes with garbage collection?

[withinboredom]

yes to all of that. In other words, we need both. We need the low-level stuff to do things nobody has ever done before, and the high-level stuff for the things we do every day.

[scarface_74]

And even assemblers had macros in the late 80s and shortcuts to make assembly easier.

There is no reason to purposefully make your life harder and not use the tools available.

The parent poster doesn’t use IDEs because it hides complexity. There is a such thing as necessarily complex.

About a decade ago I was working at a company that created a SaaS product for railroad car repair billing.

These are the main requirements not including a dozen addendums

https://public.railinc.com/sites/default/files/documents/CRB...

The parent commenter would say that we shouldn’t use an IDE to navigate through the massive code base to make sure records submitted from the railroad yards were in compliance. What alternative would you suggest?

Intellisense for Visual Studio has been out since the mid 90a

[withinboredom]

I remember when it came out. It changed my life. Libraries without docs were suddenly discoverable. I didn’t have to memorize things, I just had to remember the gist of things. It let me focus on the important stuff. Still, today, before picking up a library, I will read over the whole thing so I know what is possible; but I don’t need to memorize it.

[MrJohz]

> I reviewed many code written by junior people, and very often I see people adding code in random places that later may let the application to be hard to follow and everything "seems fine" to them.

But is that because they're following their IDE, or is it because they're junior developers? I also see that sort of issue regularly, and as someone who is very happy with their LSP creature comforts, it's still something that I have to call out and teach.

I think you're reversing cause and effect a bit here, in the sense that you're trying to argue that IDEs cause developers to be less thorough and diligent, and to care less about good code organisation. In practice I suspect it's the other way around: the people who are more likely to be diligent and get their code organisation right are the same people who would take more care in choosing exactly which tools work best for them. That is to say, it's not that IDE users are worse at code organisation, it's that the people who are worse at code organisation tend to use IDEs.

[onemoresoop]

I think the idea is that very powerful IDEs and other tools make it very easy to manage complex and disorganized codebases, the downside could be that nobody would care about cleaning up that codebase. At the same time powerful IDEs make it somewhat easier to clean up messy codebases so living in a mess is a choice.