How much ram did you have, and when was this? I remember being extremely happy with Eclipse on an 8GB machine - this was back in the jvm7 days. Heck, I did jvm6 development with Eclipse on Windows XP with 4GB of ram and was content.

Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.

For years and years I had people telling me how great IntelliJ was, etc. I eventually switched - lo and behold, IntelliJ had just as many quirks (even some of the same) as Eclipse.

▲

morcus 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.

More like Eclipse struggled on the kind of hardware that people could afford as a student.

My main memories of Eclipse (15 years ago at this point) are waiting forever for it to start up, though it was pretty adequate after that.

▲

DrewADesign 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right, but it’s essentially a fancy text editing environment. It should never have needed anything but barebones hardware.

▲

rovr138 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> essentially a fancy text editing environment

No, it’s an IDE first. Not a text editor that’s extensible. It has a lot of features built-in, pre-enabled, and configured out of the box.

Yes, it can edit text. But it can do a lot more.

	▲	gosub100 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And it clearly violated the "only pay for what you use" philosophy. Like driving a bulldozer to get a soda.

▲

gosub100 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I remember the first thing you had to do with eclipse was increase the memory limit so the obese hog called JVM could have barely enough room to wiggle around.

▲

josephg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was 2010. Our default work machines had 16gb of ram. Eclipse ran, but it was tight. Especially while debugging. Some developers also apparently liked to open a second eclipse instance for some reason. You'd go OOM pulling stunts like that.

They upgraded all of us to 32gb. 32gb doesn't sound like a lot of ram now, but in 2010 it seemed pretty wild to me. Especially for just running an IDE.

In eclipse's defence, we were working on a very large java codebase. But that shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. I've never seen a java codebase come in any other size.

I'm running intellij (RustRover) right now, and its sitting on about 4.5gb of ram. That still seems very inefficient to me. But it doesn't sound that bad compared to eclipse.

▲

iberator 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

16gb. Ram in 2010?! That's like top 10%, not standard. Even now computers are shipping with 16/32gb ram

	▲	elzbardico an hour ago \| parent [-]
		At this time laptops still could have memory upgrades, and memory was pretty cheap compared to today. The first thing I did when I bought a new laptop was buying two 8GB SoDIMMs, it was way cheaper than ordering the upgrade from factory. The thing is, memory in personal computer have plateaued for quite some time. 16GB was not uncommon in 2010. Things are not like the crazy 90s and early 2000s where PC configuration become obsolete in less than two years.

▲

Alupis 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That seems incredible. 16GB of ram to run (presumably windows 10) and Eclipse?

Eclipse, unlike IntelliJ offers "project" view were you have have many "solutions" open at once. Even with multiple Eclipse instances open, it's hard to imagine it consuming so much ram.

Perhaps you had other company-required software running. I was working on relatively largeish codebases and very happy with 8GB of ram until 2018ish.

Regardless, an IDE is more than a text editor, so your claim that RustRover with 4.5GB of ram is inefficient is misguided.

	▲	dragonwriter 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That seems incredible. 16GB of ram to run (presumably windows 10) and Eclipse? In 2010 it couldn't have been anything later than Win 7; Win 8 was released in 2012.

▲

ReptileMan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>They upgraded all of us to 32gb. 32gb doesn't sound like a lot of ram now, but in 2010 it seemed pretty wild to me. Especially for just running an IDE.

With the current prices it is still wild mate.

	▲	elzbardico an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Funny thing, memory was cheaper, and machines were upgradeable. People used to buy low memory machines and upgrade them with after market memory to avoid paying DELL or Apple's memory upgrade tax.

▲

dragonwriter 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.

My first IDE was Turbo Pascal 2.0, about 20 years before I used Eclipse, and I used a lot in between (and since). Eclipse was the single most unintuitive, user hostile, clunky, slow, and painful system to use. A few of those problems probably would have been a little bit less noticeable on a ridiculously high-end machine, but not all of them, and other contemporary IDEs worked well-enough on lighter machines. And despite how much I disliked using Eclipse, I liked the idea of Eclipse, and kept it around because it was, for a while, occupying the niche of “extensible open source platform most popular to target for interesting dev tools” (because there weren't really any alternatives that were as open and extensible).

▲

Semaphor 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I used eclipse in university around that time (2005), then first switched to netbeans which I already liked more, then discovered IntelliJ and have been using that ever since. Everything about Eclipse felt worse in ways neither of the others did, but all of that was still during university (though I now use JetBrains professionally).

▲

bilekas 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Eclipse gets a lot of automatic hate - I believe mostly since a lot of people first use it in university and struggled with their first real IDE.

this is a huge assumption and also ignores the fact that if it's not clear to users, it's a bad design.