[HN Gopher] Running IntelliJ Idea with JDK 17 for Better Render ... ___________________________________________________________________ Running IntelliJ Idea with JDK 17 for Better Render Performance with Metal Author : CSDude Score : 69 points Date : 2021-12-24 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (mustafaakin.dev) (TXT) w3m dump (mustafaakin.dev) | [deleted] | aPoCoMiLogin wrote: | If anyone is interested why this is even a thing, you can see | here [0] how every change in the IDE repaints whole window, thus | eats CPU like mad. On the MacOS with external 4k+ monitor, this | really tanks even macpro, like there is no GPU acceleration at | all and everything is rendered by the CPU. | | [0] - https://photos.app.goo.gl/fsxgEHXCsTzKL37w7 | ilovecaching wrote: | It amazes me that people put up with the gigabytes of RAM and | full cores it takes to use Jetbrains products when | VSCode/Vim/emacs can do 99% of what Jetbrains IDEs can do with | LSP at a fraction of the power consumed. I guess fleet is | Jetbrains acknowledging this shortcoming, but paying for current | products that are marginally better than free and open source | seems crazy to me. | kelp wrote: | The difference, at least with Vim and Emacs is the time it | takes or time one can spend getting it all setup to do all the | nice things the Jetbrains products just do out of the box. | | I think the last time I fully revamped my Neovim setup I spent | upwards of 40 hours learning, tweaking, and plugin shopping. | And that was before Neovim shipped with it's own LSP so it was | CoC. Now I'd probably spend however many hours converting my | config over to the new setup. | | The Jetbrains stuff just worked. I tweaked a small handful of | settings and was good to go. | | I'm generally allergic to anything Java, and desktop apps | written in Java tend to scare me off. But I'm glad I got over | that bias, because I've been pretty happy with CLion. | paulryanrogers wrote: | CoC? | scns wrote: | https://github.com/neoclide/coc.nvim | lol768 wrote: | > VSCode/Vim/emacs can do 99% of what Jetbrains IDEs can do | with LSP at a fraction of the power consumed | | I've never experienced a comparable editing, inspections and | refactoring experience with these LSP-based editors to what I | get from JetBrains' tooling. It's absolutely not 99% :) | gtaylor wrote: | The debugging and profiling features are excellent, too. Love | the thread visualizer on PyCharm. | gbear605 wrote: | I've tried VSCode, Sublime, Vim, Eclipse, and IntelliJ for both | Java and Python development. I'm more productive with IntelliJ | for both (though Python is only more productive if I'm also | extensively using type hints). Eclipse was the second best, but | it had enough rough spots and slowness than IntelliJ still | handily beat it out. The marginal productivity gain is probably | in the tens of hours throughout a year, which makes it more | than worthwhile for my company to pay the $99 for it. | | I use Sublime for other coding where it's fewer files (and Vim | for quick text editing in consoles) and I'm quite happy with it | as long as I don't have to do any refactoring. VSCode is too | slow for me in comparison and I kept running into bugs with | extensions when I tried it a year ago or so. | pjmlp wrote: | Are you aware that VSCode support for Java is actually based on | running Eclipse headless? | | Fleet does the same thing as well. | emeraldd wrote: | There are a few languages I won't touch without an IDE: Java | and C#. For Java I use IntelliJ and I don't write C# at all | anymore. Otherwise, I use Vim. VSCode is a complete non-starter | for me. I glanced at it a long while back and quickly concluded | it wasn't going to give me an editor experience I would enjoy. | In particular around "windows" to view files/sections of a | file. Something that IntelliJ also doesn't do a good job of, | but it does provide a huge advantage for Java code. | selimnairb wrote: | I think dynamic languages like Python also benefit from IDEs | since they can do continuous static analysis to help catch | errors. | | Java is better with an IDE because it's so damn verbose, and | common frameworks like Spring entail a lot of "magic". | endless1234 wrote: | Writing code and what comes with it is the one potentially | resource intensive thing I do at work. It's not like I'd be | gaming at the same time. I don't really care if my programming | environment takes up a few gigabytes of my 16 or 32 gigs of | available memory. That's why I have it, no? Perhaps that "1%" | difference is something that makes my daily work a lot nicer? | W0lf wrote: | I'd argue that one should not compare editors to IDEs as they | are not comparable. I was using VIM professionally (i.e. at | work) for many years until CLion showed up. Sure enough I could | get around in VIM using many LLVM tools such as clang-rename, | clang-format, clang-analyzer etc. but an IDE is doing much more | (of rather is capable of) than editing text efficiently. | dijit wrote: | You've already had a lot of comments to the same effect... | | But I certainly don't mind my developer tools taking more power | since that's _what I'm using my computer for_. When it comes to | things like Slack /Teams, where that is not the primary | function of my workstation (and, by it's nature needs to be | running on _everyones_ computer) I get more annoyed at wasted | resources. | | Those are secondary functions of my computer. | | Web browsing, instant messaging, email. These things should be | as lean as possible to get out of the way of my real work, | wether that's after effects or photoshop or visual studio (the | fat one). | zdragnar wrote: | > But I certainly don't mind my developer tools taking more | power since that's what I'm using my computer for | | If you are okay with being chained to a power outlet, sure. I | often find myself needing to be on battery power, and | applications gulping electricity is frustrating at best. | | (I don't use the visual design tools you listed regularly, | just writing / editing code and poking API endpoints, so | maybe that has much to do as well). | tomc1985 wrote: | "Marginally"? | | It millions of man-hours of development to get VS Code even | remotely _near_ what JetBrains has been doing well for over a | decade, and that 's being very generous in judgement. How much | money was wasted trying to get Electron to not perform super | shitty? | | Jetbrains software has its issues but it handles and has | handled nearly every language I throw it save dotnet. And I | grew up on big chunky IDEs and that is what I know and like. | Vim is cool (I use it for more basic tasks) but lobbing | molotovs like that only furthers pointless holy wars. | danieldk wrote: | Some language servers (e.g. PyRight) also regularly consume 2GB | RAM for me when using Emacs. Also, for some languages, their | IDEs are just way ahead of the competition (e.g. Java). Even | for e.g. Rust CLion works really well. | | (I probably use Emacs and JetBrains products 50/50. I prefer | the keybindings of Doom Emacs, but prefer the JetBrains IDEs | for actual development. E.g. refactoring is a lot easier.) | kelp wrote: | I'd almost forgotten that a lot of the (n)vim language | servers require Node.js. The first time I tried CoC it was | over an ssh session to a small VPS I had. | | I started up Neovim with the new config, and promptly had my | ssh session hang. It took me a little bit to figure out that | I'd maxed out the 256MB of RAM on my little VPS and hard | locked it. Had to get a bigger VPS to actually run my editor. | sgjohnson wrote: | >"gigabytes of RAM [...] it takes to use JetBrains" >VSCode | | Not to mention that in this context it's not even appropriate | to use Vim an VSCode in the same sentence. | denimnerd42 wrote: | jetbrains works for me in a way those others do not. vim and | emacs are non starters. vscode is plugin hell. jetbrains just | works out of the box. | sethhochberg wrote: | Sometimes good enough defaults are really good enough. | | There definitely was a time in my career (admittedly before | VSCode and some of the other cool new kids on the editor | block even existed) where I obsessed over vim plugins and | macros and themes - but these days I love that consistent out | of the box experience, too. Plus the IDEA has DataGrip | embedded, and I love having a good database client right | alongside the code I'm looking at. | | As I've gotten older my whole philosophy with tech has | shifted towards not letting the perfect be the enemy of the | good, editors/IDEs included. | sk5t wrote: | They really aren't comparable; IDEA is far ahead in profiling, | refactoring, inspections, Git history integration, and probably | a bunch of other things too that I haven't yet bothered to | learn about. | jaytaylor wrote: | I wonder: Would the JDK17 GraalVM offer additional benefits? | kaba0 wrote: | Do you mean the Graal JIT compiler or AOT compiling? The former | may at times be better at escape analysis, but I don't think | there would be a significant difference. Using an up-to-date GC | implementation is already night-and-day (I use G1GC with | slightly decreased target pause time and larger heap size. But | ZGC would be probably the best for this use case) | | I'm not sure whether Intellij could be AOT compiled, would be | interesting due to faster startup time but AOT compiled | binaries can be somewhat slower than what the JIT compiler is | capable of. | dijit wrote: | JDK17 also supports wayland natively, one of the major blockers | of having a good experience on wayland is waiting for the upgrade | to JDK17. | | https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/JBR-1315 | kevinherron wrote: | You sure about that? The existence of this project suggests | otherwise: | https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/wakefield/OpenJDK+Proj... | | AFAIK it's all still running on XWayland. | samus wrote: | JDK 17 does _not_ support Wayland natively. [Project Wakefield] | (https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/wakefield/OpenJDK+Proj.. | .) aims to resolve that. So far, Java GUI applications only | support connecting to an XWayland server when on Wayland. This | is also stated in the bug you linked. | dijit wrote: | That's extremely unfortunate and I'm not sure how I got that | impression. | | I'm quite certain I read this because I spent significant | amounts of time trying to get IntelliJ to run on EA versions | of JDK... but evidently I'm wrong as it even mentions as such | in the link I pasted. | | :/ | kelp wrote: | Dumb question here. Why is this necessary? Does Jetbrains not | include their latest Jetbrain Runtime release in their IDE | builds? | | Or maybe Jetbrains Runtime releases run a bit ahead of what gets | bundled in with the various Jetbrains IDEs? | aPoCoMiLogin wrote: | Jetbrains includes JBR11 by default. | bmc7505 wrote: | It is recommended to use the currently bundled JBR version (JDK | 11). Although later versions are available for testing, they | are less stable as the author of this blog post mentions at the | end. | chrisseaton wrote: | JetBrains' fork is not regularly merged, and is somewhat old at | the moment. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-24 23:00 UTC)