I'd be more willing to pay for the quality if a nice, unified experience was the result, but it annoyingly isn't. To say nothing of the lack of support for things like Rust.
That's what this new generation of IDEs is exciting to me - the unified language server standards. Let the compilers handle understanding the code which is what they are best at. Especially if it helps make IDEs less tied to the build system in general (no, CLion, I don't want to use CMake)
That said I still spend a chunk of time (maybe 30%) in vscode because for somethings I prefer it (it's git support with git lens is incredible) and for TypeScript it's comparable to Intellij with the advantage you can start it, do an edit and close before Intellij has finished re-indexing.
Point being, a higher price point for a C++ IDE makes a lot of sense.
Except Eclipse does C++ better than CLion and it's $250 cheaper. The only real advantage JetBrains has here is consistency with their other products, but then they ruined that by putting it in its own standalone product. So you can't have, say, a Python/Java/Kotlin project with a C++ extension library in a single IDE window, at least not if you're invested in JetBrains technology.
Whereas that would work fine in vscode, Eclipse, Atom-IDE probably once it gets a C++ language server plugin which LLVM is working on, etc... Competition is good. IntelliJ is far from complete. That's really all I'm getting at. IntelliJ is not the pinacle, superior end-all-be-all IDE that some were saying here. It maybe is if you're in their primary supported set of languages. But it's not if you're at all on the fringes of what JetBrains supports (not that I'd necessarily call C++ a "fringe", either, but whatever)
Compilers generally stop after the first set of errors in the first compilation unit. IDE indexers want to keep going as much as possible.
I've never been particularly bullish on Atom or Electron, but I think Jetbrains is going to be eating their lunch for awhile at least.
I've never minded paying for developer tools as long as I could afford them, lots of professionals spend a lot more than we do on tools/professional development.
If you think about how much money you can make from a professional tool and how much productivity it gains you then the price should be a no brainier.
Then I bought a mid-range Weller station and things got super easy again. It's about ten years old now and still works fine. It's probably a worthwhile investment, even for rare use. I mean, it's only ~$100 to get a pretty good iron, vs. $20 for garbage.
I have a soldering iron that has to be the cheapest of the cheap, that I've had since 1991; I got it when I went to a local votech electronics school fresh from high school.
It's something like a 35 watt pencil iron, and the tip is janky like nobody's business. You have to wait like 15 minutes for it to heat up. The tip is not in the greatest shape.
But I can tin that puppy up and solder perfectly with it. Now, I'm not saying you could do SMT rework using it, but basic thru-hole is no problem at all. I've assembled tons of things with it over the years.
I also have a couple of older temp controlled irons - and they are great tools as well; honestly, I prefer them over my old iron. But I know, at least for myself, that what iron I use doesn't make a difference in the project, but rather the skills I bring to the table.
As the old saying goes, "a poor craftsman blames his tools"...
I merely found it difficult to use the cheap pencil iron to get good results, because good results required a lot more out of me, mostly in the form of patience waiting for it to get hot. Also, I suspect cheap tools have gotten worse since 1991. I have cheap tools I bought in that era that are higher quality than the same brand/model today.
Nonetheless, it's just good advice to use good tools if you do something often. And, sometimes it's good advice to use good tools even if you don't do it often, but expect to do it again in the future (I find myself working on things that require soldering every couple of years, but expect that'll be true for the rest of my life, so I might as well use a decent iron to do it...it's not like they stop working after being stored for a year).
edit: I stand corrected; didn't see the asterisk and the separate page specifying that an active subscription isn't necessary to continue using the current version of the software.
You only need to keep paying if you want to keep getting updates. If you're happy with the current version no one is forcing you to keep paying or keep updating.
I can't speak to all IDEs, but at least with IntelliJ you're not just renting it.
They even give you a helpful info-graphic telling you how to minimize subscription cost if you just want to get a perpetual license for a particular version:
https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/article_attachments/203545445...
It still seems bizarre that one standard case is that you pay for a subscription, presumably using version x, and then are pushed down to version x-1 if you didn't subscribe for at least a year under version x.
At least bug fixes are included:
"The license also includes all bugfix updates, more specifically in X.Y.Z version all Z releases are included."
I can understand giving you the major version at the time you bought the subscription but it's a bit stingy to exclude minor version bumps (Y releases).
You're forced to upgrade when the language you're using upgrades. Or the ecosystem around the product evolves. The IDE doesn't live in a vacuum that will work in perpetuity.
It's realistically much closer to renting than buying as once the updates stop it's not that much longer until the product is no longer usable in a modern environment. Simple example would be if you want to use Kotlin 1.1.4 (latest stable) you must be using Intellij 2016.2 or newer to get the corresponding 1.1.4 kotlin plugin. And if you use an older plugin, the IDE will complain at you and things will be buggy and not work right. Similarly since gradle support is built into the IDE at some point that will fail if your IDE is no longer being updated.
It's not realistic to avoid updating the IDE for long. That's why Jetbrains prominently features subscription and yearly renewals - because you're very nearly forced into it.
It used to be there was a plugin package to allow you to use IntelliJ for C/C++ development, in addition to all the other languages. That changed, though - and they split CLion off the main branch.
So now - if for instance you want to do NodeJS robotics work, and interface to an Arduino (for example), you would need to use regular IntelliJ with the extensions for javascript, and CLion separately for C/C++ development. Essentially dinging you twice for what should be the same damn product.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them split the javascript portion off into its own editor suite as well.
Atom may not be or have everything that IntelliJ does, but because it is open source, and extensible, and not controlled by a singular entity, I know that I don't have to worry about it changing like that in the future.
Don't get me wrong, though - I like IntelliJ, I think it's a great IDE (started out with PHPStorm). But I think it should have stayed general purpose and extensible, and not lock languages out to move people to another (but essentially the same) IDE. I'd have no problem paying the yearly fee - but I'm not going to pay for it twice.
I'm not a fan of their license change either, but calling it perpetual rent is just not correct.
119 for Intellij 199 for everything.
I didn't need everything since Intellij with plugins is everything (for the stuff I do).
My only issue is lack of good Rust support.
But, for JetBrains, at $200/seat/year ... as an Indie making anything more than $150/hour, why would you even worry about it?
EDIT: I'm mostly a vi guy, so I don't really know my ass from a hole in the ground w.r.t. IDEs. It's just ridiculous to me that a professional might complain about a $200 tool being expensive. But, your constraints are not my constraints, so I'm probably being overly judgemental. And, for that, if I am, I am sorry.
It is a bargain compared with what I used to pay for programming tools during the 90's.
In other professions people care to buy their tools.
JetBrains' tools have to be rented.
That's not correct. JetBrains subscriptions come with a perpetual fallback license for the version available when you purchased the subscription. This is basically the same as the previous model where you would buy a license for a specific version with free upgrades for some period of time afterwards. Most people would continuously buy the upgrade license they wanted to stay on the latest version.
https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...
If not, anyone can create e.g. a free and open Python or Ruby IDE inside the familiar IntelliJ IDE experience, e.g. by adopting IDE-like software used in Emacs, Vim, or Sublime.
See also: language servers. I think that the future is "the editor of your choice" + "the language servers you can afford". JetBrains's IDE is already modular, but these modules just happen to run in the same Java process. This limitation of IDE architecture can be overcome, and companies like Microsoft keep pouring efforts into it.
I find it's IntelliSense and TypeScript support superior. Especially when I'm on a project using webpack/sass/etc. IDEA just seems to get lost. It either can't find a method definition or is constantly complaining about various things.
WebStorm is somewhat better, but I'm not going to pop for another license when I technically already have that functionality covered.
I haven't tried WebStorm since 2016, so my last experience is dated but I've just gotten to like VS Code for front end work.
I can't speak for most languages, but for Python it seems to be very far from the "de facto"; I've only seen a few people, and most people strongly dislike it.
It's difficult to beat vim (or Emacs) for quick edits. But for deep-dive coding I'm gladly sold in on jetbrains.
Isn't it basically an Atom alternative? What makes it, and not Atom, an IDE rather than 'augmented text editor', to borrow GP's phrasing?