I've been using code-d for a while, and it generally works well. I've also noticed there's another plugin available, which at the time I first looked, appeared to be older and less-featured than code-d.
I've recently had a couple of colleagues ask me which plugin to install, and I noticed that both seem to be up-to-date these days, and this leads to confusion. Looking at the feature list, it appears that both plugins do mostly the same stuff. My feeling is, having 2 very similar plugins is confusing to potential users, and it undermines user confidence. Ie, users have the feeling that they're competing hacky things maintained by some guy, rather than something that's more 'official' with consolidated community support. I also tend to presume in these situations that the 'proper' one is the one with the most users/installs, but that's not clear either in this case. I know this has nothing to do with the truth, but it's about perception and first impressions. Little things matter. If authors of both plugins are active here, I ask; why have 2 separate plugins? I can't imagine any reason for divergence. I would be a lot more comfortable if there was only one with multiple contributors. Projects with many contributors always inspire a lot more confidence than multiple overlapping projects with one contributor each... So, is there a reason not to merge the projects beyond ego?
