The netbeans-maven integration is waaa...aay better than what I found in eclipse and intellij. Maven projects are basically native netbeans projects - no extra files necessary. Unless you want to do something in your IDE that you don't want to write in pom.xml, I guess...
On Friday, 13 October 2017 13:41:34 EEST Martin Dindoffer wrote: > > What are those small things? Providing a list of those small things, for > > others to implement, is precisely the very significant role that you can > > play in this project. > > Hi there, fellow Java developer here. > The thing is, as others have pointed out, Netbeans is quite behind other > major IDEs and the list of the small things would be really huge. > Also, you already have a list. A bug list. And a big one. Do you think > those hundreds of bugs are not relevant anymore because they are old? > Absolutely not. > If you'd like to know about some specific issues I'm dealing with: > * Maven integration is bad. Compared to competition it is slow, the > periodic indexing is painful. The dependency graph generator is unusable on > large projects. > * JavaFX support is almost non-existent. > * The Java refactorings lack many of the features intellij has. > * Some lesser known languages do not have any plugin/support. (Yang anyone?) > * When an external changes happen to a larger codebase, NB takes up to a > minute or two to cope with it and reopen everything or whatever it does. * > Those little mising features everyone speaks about are everywhere from > lacking colors in maven terminal output to javadoc popups not parsing html. > > I use Netbeans at work for regular development. The amount of exceptions I > receive from the IDE varies from 3 - 12 every day. > There's a plethora of visual glitches and errors. Sometimes it even likes > to crash. > Is the exception reporter tool still being used by the devs? Or should > everything be reported via a ticket manually. > > > Instead, start a new mail thread with a specific missing feature, > > something > > > small -- and let's discuss that feature via a mail thread, first. Then, at > > some point in the discussion, someone will say, let's create an issue > > around this feature, now that we've discussed it, and someone else will > > say, hey I think I know how to fix that, let me try and then I'll send a > > pull request for others to review. > > I really do not think a mail thread for each little change is a good idea. > Just because of the sheer amount of bugs and features. > > Martin
