I like the camelHump completion tht AppCode does - however when I need an NSString, and I start typing NSSt, the first suggestion is NSSymbolStringEncoding - has this been fixed in today's build?
Intellij appcode code#
declaring the actual member variable for a property) and then Xcode figures that out on compile time - I am not a fan of this approach, because you end up with some "invisible" source code - I prefer the explicitness, which is now *so* easy to accomplish in AppCode. I know that now you can skip some of the steps (eg. I have never understood *why* it has to be such a pain in the *ss to add a variable/property to a class in Xcode. I really hadn't noticed the property/synthesize problem - I usually just declare my member variable or property and then hit Alt+Enter to automatically create the other as well as synthesize and deallocation statements.
Intellij appcode mac#
I don't know whether this is because Mac developers put a lot more effort into the look and feel or if it's just because the Cocoa framework automatically makes applications look pretty.
Intellij appcode free#
Also, over the 3 years that I have used a Mac as my primary PC, I have certainly noticed that *all* programs generally looks way better on Mac than on Windows (both paid and free software). But when I read your evaluation, I kinda see what he's talking about. Hard for me to understand, as I value the productivity factor over look and feel, and nothing comes close to AppCode in this respect. I asked one of my friends to try out AppCode (he's a game developer, primarily uses Visual Studio and some Xcode), and he has very high expectations when it comes to the look and feel of Mac apps - he wouldn't touch AppCode with a stick as it is right now. As a long time IntelliJ user (mostly on Windows), I haven't thought of many of the things that you mention, but you're spot on. Of course AppCode has benefits in terms of fixing things (such as importing headers for you) but on a lot of the tiny things Xcode is a lot smarter, though it does use Clang for its code completion/indexing.Īwesome evaluation of the Mac-ness of AppCode. Xcode however will suggest testObject, as it matches the return type. If I start typing test for the return value, AppCode will suggest the testBool variable, as it is first alphabetically. Smarter code completion for return types. Xcode only suggests age, whereas AppCode still suggests name.ģ. I select name, type a comma and then bring up completion again. If I do then bring up the completion, both Xcode and AppCode suggest name and age as completions. It also only shows the property names of properties that haven't yet been synthesised.įor example, say I have 2 properties: name and age. AppCode also shows some other stuff (granted it's a lot better than Xcode 3). If you type then bring up code completion, Xcode only shows property names. It filters these completions, ignoring any where the return type doesn't match that already entered and ignoring any already implemented methods.Ģ. As I start typing a method signature Xcode offers completions. Code completion for method signatures in. Hopefully AppCode can eventually compete with Xcode on UI as well :)
Xcode 4 actually made a huge leap forward and is not only really nice from a usability point of view, but it also just nice aesthetically as well.
Prior to Xcode 4 I always said that "Xcode had the nicest UI of any IDE, but that that was like saying it was the nicest smelling dog turd". The one area that Xcode beats AppCode hands down though is the UI. Xcode is better in some places (eg code completion) and AppCode is better in others (eg refactoring). Hopefully people find it interesting and useful and it helps start some discussion about the UI.Īt the moment I don't see AppCode and Xcode been too far apart functionality wise. It is by no means comprehensive, and some of it is somewhat subjective. It's taken a while as I've been busy, but I've finally written it up. A while back I told the JetBrains guys that I'd do an overview of the AppCode UI, highlighting the areas where it could be improved.
0 kommentar(er)
