[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)