I'd typically rather have more information about the file I'm currently working on rather than a bunch of different files open. When I'm using a text editor I'll want multiple text windows, but that's because navigation between files is much harder in that environment.
I think this is unfortunately why people get a bad idea about an IDE.
I don't want a tab or button for everything. I want to primarily write text (i.e. code) but I also want it to be intelligent about what I'm writing - i.e. I want the autocomplete, the parameter hinting, the type checking (i.e. can't use the result of a void method, or can't do string ops on an array etc). I also want the option to have refactor helpers (moving methods, renaming methods, changing argument order, etc).
I've found IDEA (and before that PhpStorm, but it supports less plugins) are generally able to meet that need but you have to be careful about which plugins you install. I want Lua support, that doesn't mean I want a Lua console button in all projects.
Most IDEs can thankfully be trimmed down to look like QtCreator.
I daily write in Xcode and that is very slimmed-down. In fact, Visual Studio developers typically hate it on first using it because there is only editors on the screen as opposed to property panes both sides of the editor!
And I would say that it is ONLY C++ is truly a benefit to QtCreator!! No use trying to be everything to everyone. Plus, C++ is the best language for everything isn't it? (I jest, I jest)
Customizable? but is it easy? Is there a drag'n'drop for the toolbar buttons? Can the fonts for menus and panel titles be downsized easily?
Also, Eclipse tends to try to do everything in their IDE: Transition an issue, commit, execute a command-line program, browse the database, etc. It's a very different spirit from, say, SublimeText where each program is dedicated to one thing well. It has a lot of impact on the UI, hence the critics "Code is 40% of my screen". I personally prefer IDEA now because it comes with thin shims.
Btw, the HN rules say "No negativity". Just a reminder to be considerate for the Eclipse team.
> Eclipse tends to try to do everything in their IDE
Isn't that the whole point of an IDE? I mean, an Integrated Development Environment, by definition, should have all the tools integrated, as opposed to a text editor which is only one tool in an unintegrated development environment.
I prefer Emacs myself, but if I wanted an IDE, I'd probably go for the one that can do everything I want to do.
Other comments say they prefer the axiom "IDE==awesome autocompletion" (e.g. LightTable) rather than "IDE==Embed all the tools into one window!".
I have worked in IT services companies. They wrap almost a full OS into Eclipse (or WSAD). They have people who don't have a clue about programming , they need to onboard them and they do little to upgrade their knowledge. I used to wonder how architects learnt about Git and Maven, until the day I decided not to use IDE buttons, tried them on the command line and discovered "--help". It's all self-documented, output is all logged, I can debug compilation errors alone!
 Recruitment and HR is a cost center for consultancies. At one point they just took graduates from Chemistry major with a mild interest in Excel. Needless to say those who stayed became PMs. I've seen millions of euros from government, banks and insurances thrown into multiplying employees, rather than improving employees.
The great thing about web based IDE's and the reason we will see more of this in the future is the opportunity for vendor lock in. Once you can control a developers tool chain you can prevent him from moving to another vendor because of all the stuff he can't take with him.
Hosting it myself would be a requirement for using a cloud IDE. Of course, there is still some lock-in, but the lock-in is the same with a desktop IDE.
In general, a cloud IDE has some nice promises: Initial setup is trivial; More efficient building and testing due to resource sharing in the cloud; Live collaboration is simpler. However, so far I'm underwhelmed by everything available.
Given the mixed technical/non-technical nature, I'd suggest something like Gollum (the thing that powers GitHub's Wiki's) because you can allow both "in-browser" editing and (for the technically minded) local editing via the raw markdown/RST/etc files in a cloned git repo.
To me, Git-LFS and Git-Annex when compared to the Mercurial LargeFiles extension, are perfect examples of what's wrong with Git.
Mercurial's LargeFiles extension allows you to do what I would imagine, 90%+ of Git-LFS users will want to do: store some binary assets with their regular source code.
In Mercurial, the files get stored on the shared server, inside the .hg directory of the repo you clone. They are cached between requests client side, and it generally just works. I had to add 2 lines server side, and 5 lines client side (both times in a hgrc file) to enable and test the functionality.
With Git it seems very much that Git-LFS (rather than Git-Annex) is more like what I need to achieve basically the same results/workflow.
Oh wait, but I need a separate Git-LFS server. So, Git-LFS was created by GitHub, and they of course support Git-LFS on their servers.. But I want to manage this repo on my own machines so what can I do..
Oh look GitHib has a reference implementation of a standalone Git-LFS server.. Oh wait. Second sentence of the Readme is a bit ominous:
> It is intended to be used for testing the Git LFS client and is not in a production ready state.
I'm just using regular SSH access to use my Repos, can't I just access the Git-LFS file store that way? Oh. No. I have to expose a HTTP(S) server that accepts basic auth.. Oh and the Git client needs to be able to provide the Authorisation header automatically so I don't get prompted... Oh and the slightest thing can make the "automatic" mapping of URLS from repo to LFS-store not work, meaning I have to specify it manually...
That Git-LFS comes from GitHub and is relatively complex to setup for hosting, is likely not a coincidence. They make money offering 'easy' repo hosting. Why would they want to make it easier to setup your own repo.
> Work like you always do on Git—no need for additional commands, secondary storage systems
So you don't need a secondary storage system... you just need a HTTPS server and Username/Password authentication layer.. but that isn't a secondary system. Just like a Turducken isn't really three birds crammed into one.
There is nothing that I've read that describes what you said.
That said, I have multiple photostreams with almost 1000 photos/videos per photostream, and none have been deleted. So I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, if it is just a sync mechanism. As well, I do know that without an internet connection, the videos don't work, so I'm not sure what "sync" even means in this context.
The subheading says: "With My Photo Stream, you can access the recent photos that you take with your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch, on your Mac and PC."
Under the instructions about setting it up is this:
> My Photo Stream uploads your most recent photos so you can view and import them to all of your devices. Photos are stored in My Photo Stream for 30 days.
I don't know what material you've been reading, but Photostream has always been marketed by Apple as a way to get photos from any of your devices, onto the others. Think of it like a delayed queue. Device A uploads the 5 photos you just took to the photostream. Devices B and C connect later (either because they were off, or had no Wifi, etc) and (depending on your settings) can download those 5 photos. After a month, the photos are automatically deleted from the photo stream.
In the world of iCloud Photo Library, the only reason to keep the "Upload to My Photo Stream" option turned on, is if you have a device that can't use the new Photos app (e.g. older iOS/OSX).
Based on what you're saying about "multiple PhotoStreams" I don't even know what you're doing. Are you sure what you're using is PhotoStreams, and not just regular shared albums? It doesn't sound anything like PhotoStream if you have multiple, long-lived collections.
This is funny. You're right. What I thought were Photostreams are actually iCloud Shared Albums. No wonder I've been so confused. However, they used to be called Photo Streams, I believe. Or at least, they used to be called "streams", which is probably why I conflated the terms. I know they were called streams because I just checked my iPhone 4, which is still on IOS 7.1.2, and it says distinctly "Create New Stream". On IOS 8, it says "Start Sharing". I just never noticed they got rid of the term stream and/or changed the meaning. I can honestly say at this point I don't know what a Photostream is anymore then.
As I said, your Photostream is just the last 30 days of photos from any device said to upload to it. This allows automatic import into other devices, if you aren't using iCloud Photo Library (or if some devices can't use it)
I've definitely had some issues with their iCloud related Photo systems, but the little messing around I've had to do has been worth it for the functionality when they work, IMO.