Jetbrains increase cost of IDEA by US$100

[Mark Derricutt]

Ouch - this just landed in my inbox (and I'm sure others):

"At JetBrains, we feel we provide a great value to the marketplace. In spite of the industry trends, we have held the IntelliJ IDEA price unchanged for the past 5 years. To maintain the same level of quality in our product and services, we now find it necessary to increase the IntelliJ IDEA regular price from $ 499 to $ 599.

The new IntelliJ IDEA license price of $ 599 will be effective from February, 15th, 2008. Any IntelliJ IDEA license purchases made before February, 15th, 2008 will be honored at the current price of $ 499."


I'm already seeing resistence at work to upgrade/buy new licenses for new devs - I can see this price change being a final nail in my fight against our new pro-eclipse manager.. :(

What do people think the general response will be?


--
"The L in LAMP stands for Linux, not Looney" - Jonathan Schwartz, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

[Todd Costella]

It’s a shame but I can understand. I’m a huge fan of Idea and have been since version 2.0. Each release gets better and better, the most recent big addition for me is the Groovy support they added in 7.

 

This is one of those tools that I would spend my own hard earned money to use and we have a ton of Open Source gear in our stack. IDEs aren’t one of them.

 

Todd

 

 

---

[Kirk]

Well, Eclipse is now $600 cheaper. ;-)

I really sympathize with JetBrains. Here they are making a great product
trying to make a living from it and they have to complete with 3 free
products, 2 of which were essentially losers in the market place prior
to being dumped into the open source community. It is funny how pay for
losers have now become "free" winners. Mostly this is because companies
have mistaken free to mean we don't have to pay. And who can blame them.
Why should they pay these licenses if there is no compelling business
case to do so. In fact maybe that is your answer, make a compelling
business case or anti up for your own license. $600 isn't a lot of money
for a tool that you use so intimately in your day to day work.

Regards,
Kirk

[Christian Catchpole]

IntelliJ is by far my favorite. I have already spent half the morning
arguing with an eclipse build. Software professionals must already
have a fairly low cost in regards to non-wage outlays and tools.
While I have an OSS license for IntelliJ myself and would find it
difficult to justify the cost, I cant see why an employer should not
invest such a small arount relative to all the other expenses. If you
are looking to cut a cost, choose something that realy is less
important in the bigger scheme of things (drop a salesman or don't buy
that extra 16 processor server you won't even use anyway?? :)

We recently chose an IDE as a standard tool across a very large
organization. The main problem there was the large and varying number
of seats. I still voted IntelliJ but it wasn't to be. I wont tell
you what was chosen. I want to maintain some facade of respect on
this forum.

> Kirk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alexey Zinger]

--- Christian Catchpole <chri...@catchpole.net> wrote:

> We recently chose an IDE as a standard tool across a very large
> organization. The main problem there was the large and varying number
> of seats. I still voted IntelliJ but it wasn't to be. I wont tell
> you what was chosen. I want to maintain some facade of respect on
> this forum.

This kind of scenario is why I wish there were better IDE standards. Does
anybody really care what fonts you set to edit text? Does anybody really care
what keyboard shortcuts you use? No. But do people care that each developer
builds their test environment the same way? Yes. Do they care that each
developer has access to the same features pertinent to the project, like remote
debugging for instance? Absolutely. In many ways we already have such
standards: using an Ant or Maven project file instead of a proprietary IDE
project format. But we could benefit from more such standards-driven
flexibility (AST editing).

Alexey
2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
1992 Kawasaki EX500
http://azinger.blogspot.com
http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
http://wcollage.sourceforge.net

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Peter Becker]

On Feb 8, 2008 6:06 AM, Alexey Zinger <inlin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- Christian Catchpole <chri...@catchpole.net> wrote:

> We recently chose an IDE as a standard tool across a very large
> organization.  The main problem there was the large and varying number
> of seats.  I still voted IntelliJ but it wasn't to be.  I wont tell
> you what was chosen.  I want to maintain some facade of respect on
> this forum.

This kind of scenario is why I wish there were better IDE standards.  Does
anybody really care what fonts you set to edit text?  Does anybody really care
what keyboard shortcuts you use?  No.  But do people care that each developer
builds their test environment the same way?  Yes.  Do they care that each
developer has access to the same features pertinent to the project, like remote
debugging for instance?  Absolutely.  In many ways we already have such
standards: using an Ant or Maven project file instead of a proprietary IDE
project format.  But we could benefit from more such standards-driven
flexibility (AST editing).

I have been working in environments where people didn't care about which IDE you are using. The official build is done by Ant on the build server in any case, so why should they? Of course there should be at least one officially supported one people can default to, but if someone else feels more comfortable to deviate that's fine.

OTOH it duplicates some configuration efforts (but I think that should be negligible) and sometimes you can get extra boni from committing fully to one IDE. For example I am working on one OSS project where we decided to use a few more advanced features of Eclipse, including running the formatting and other code fixup on each save. If you want to configure multiple code formatters you will find that there is much more work. And running the formatter out-of-band means getting the formatting as separate commits or even mixed with unrelated change. But of course we don't mind anyone using a different IDE, but I suspect the formatter problems will grow with the size of their commits. It's really a tradeoff and since all core devs where using Eclipse anyway we went down that route (and so far I like it -- it's good to be able to just code messily formatted, knowing Eclipse will give you a more-or-less canonical form once you save).

  Peter

[Alexey Zinger]

I'm a big believer in AST editing. Once we have that, everyone can view the
code however they want without affecting anyone else. Where the tabs and
newlines code in C-like syntax, after all, is just a matter of style.

Alexey
2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
1992 Kawasaki EX500
http://azinger.blogspot.com
http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
http://wcollage.sourceforge.net

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Viktor Klang]

Amen!

-V
 

Alexey
2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
1992 Kawasaki EX500
http://azinger.blogspot.com
http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
http://wcollage.sourceforge.net



     ____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

       /lift/ committer (www.liftweb.net)
     SGS member (Scala Group Sweden)
 SEJUG member (Swedish Java User Group)
\_____________________________________/

[Peter Becker]

I agree, but since I don't have it I find the canonicalization by the Eclipse formatter the next best choice.

It doesn't do the best job, but it is good enough and the fact that it comes with the save action (and thus very early, definitely before the commit) makes me stop thinking about formatting most of the time.

I'm not trying to promote Eclipse here, though (in fact I think its quality seems to go downhill lately), but I think that feature is very cool to have. If your favorite IDE has it you should try :-)

BTW: I don't think of IDEA as an option for an OSS project since it is not accessible for people curious about it. I know you can get free licences, but that is a process too involved. Currently my instructions for people wanting to try our OSS stuff look like this:

 - install a JDK and Eclipse
 - install Subclipse
 - check out this URL
 - go for it

The result of that might not be optimal, but it is nice and easy. If you have to configure libraries, formatted and all the rest it isn't that easy anymore. If you have to apply for an IDE licence it gets too complicated -- assuming you can get one based on the "I'd like to check out this project" notion.

  Peter

[Christian Catchpole]

Yeah, I don't think builds should be tied to an IDE. If anything, the
diversity promotes a clean and stable build. So much time is spent
configuring and maintaining IDE environments. And I have yet to see
an IDE/build/source control configuration that is used in the way it
was intended.

I have suspicion for any employer that won't let me use my choice of
IDE and do it on my Mac. Perhaps they don't take software development
seriously. :)

[Christian Catchpole]

> So much time is spent configuring and maintaining IDE environments.

By that I meant, I often walk onto a project, spend half a day setting
up the build, asking around for all the undocumented steps and still
have no confidence its building as expected. I should be able to...

1> check out
2> set custom backend hosts etc
3> build

..but that would be too easy.

[Joshua Marinacci]

>>>>
> I'm a big believer in AST editing. Once we have that, everyone can
> view the
> code however they want without affecting anyone else. Where the
> tabs and
> newlines code in C-like syntax, after all, is just a matter of style.

Wait?! So are you saying that here in the 21st century we *shouldn't*
be saving our valuable code in a 40 year old text file format?
Surely you jest, good sir! This is an insult to the queen. I challenge
you to a du-el!

:)

[Alexey Zinger]

Actually, my good sir, I'm not saying that at all. We can continue to store
our code in a 40 year old text format, but that doesn't mean we should view and
edit it as such, though it should continue to be an option. Here's my crackpot
vision:

We don't need to modify IDE's (but we can), we don't need to modify code
repositories, build tools JVM. The only thing we need to modify is the version
control _client_ that will include some intelligence about AST, hopefully in an
extensible fashion so that new syntaxes could be piggybacked onto existing
software. What these modules would do is attempt to control the format of
known syntaxes on the client side and on the server side for updates/checkouts
and, very importantly, diffs. And all of a sudden, all existing development
tools continue to work with no mods required, teams can optionally standardize
what kind of formatting goes into the repository, and individual developers can
optionally configure how said code is presented to them. Whether they edit AST
using heads-up displays and brain wave scanners or whether they continue to
type :wq will make no difference to anyone else.

[Christian Catchpole]

I was pleasently supprised when I first discovered that JAR files were
just ZIP files. Not commenting on the ZIP file structure itself, it
just seemed far too easy and practicle to be true.

ps. Im visiting head office in Florida (I live in Brisbane
Australia). Its nice to be in the same time zone as most of the
posters here.. although i know at least 2 fellow Brisvegas-ites, Peter
B. and Michael N.

[Peter Becker]

I use UTF-8 instead of ASCII nowadays. Not that it makes any difference for the source files but it sounds more modern.

  Peter

[mattz]

With maven, depending on how complex the environment, you can get this
or something close to it. Our team, has mostly eclipse users (many of
which want to be IntelliJ users), and some IntelliJ users (that
decided shelling out for the IDE was worth it). The process boils down
to (if starting from scratch).

1> check out
2> mvn idea:idea
or
mvn eclipse:eclipse
3> IntelliJ - open the project file
Eclipse - open a workspace and import the projects
4> Build

The maven build takes maintenance, but you can get push button
releases and continuous integration out of the deal.

By the way, Jetbrains has a personal license in the line-up that
allows an individual to purchase it for $249 (US) that can be used for
work, home, wherever. http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/index.html

Matt

On Feb 8, 6:04 am, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net>
wrote:

[Christian Catchpole]

The personal license makes a lot of sense. Now your company might
want to buy flexible licenses in case you leave. But even if they
wont let you expense it, it could be a personal tax deduction. *

* not tax advise - check with your local overlords.

On Feb 9, 12:54 am, mattz <zimmer.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With maven, depending on how complex the environment, you can get this
> or something close to it. Our team, has mostly eclipse users (many of
> which want to be IntelliJ users), and some IntelliJ users (that
> decided shelling out for the IDE was worth it). The process boils down
> to (if starting from scratch).
>
> 1> check out
> 2> mvn idea:idea
>      or
>     mvn eclipse:eclipse
> 3> IntelliJ - open the project file
>      Eclipse - open a workspace and import the projects
> 4> Build
>
> The maven build takes maintenance, but you can get push button
> releases and continuous integration out of the deal.
>
> By the way, Jetbrains has a personal license in the line-up that
> allows an individual to purchase it for $249 (US) that can be used for

> work, home, wherever.http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/index.html

[Eric Winter]

Well they had to do it with the weak dollar.

I guess it will become more and more favorable for American's to build
their own ID to compete as the dollar loses against the Czech Crown.

Still worth it at $100 more but I'm sure it will go higher than that.

E