If you actually read his comment, I think you'll agree this was an accurate and fair assessment. I've worked with those kids who believe they're super smart and others are simpletons purely based on tool preferences.
As someone else mentioned here, the graphical merge tool in IDEA is extremely powerful. Plus keyboard shortcuts to all the main Git actions. It's overall more efficient. However I always use Git IDEA + Git CLI side by side.
Thank Garbage Collected languages. I just checked the IDEA config and found its maximum heap is set to 750 MB by default. You typically wouldn't need 32GB to run it.
You are delusional and immature. I've seen experienced Vim/Emacs kiddies like you really struggle to keep up with my productivity levels in IDEA with JVM languages. Doing everything at the command line doesn't make you 1337 and superior. The actual typing and manipulation of text is the least complex side of development. Most of my time is spent thinking, analyzing, rather than monkeying with text. However I use Vim keybindings in IDEA and get the best of both worlds. Efficient text editing + advanced semantic parsing at a level that Vim and Emacs will never achieve.
>> If better GCs come out or tweaks to the algorithms are made, these configurations have to be updated. In contrast, Go programs gets these benefits for free.
> There is no reason why Java can't do the same by updating defaults. In fact, they often do.
Correct. The JVM guys always update the default GC to be the nearest to 'one size fits all'. Obviously if you've made a custom GC configuration then you want a level of tuning that Go does not provide.
Yet another person who only skimmed the article and hasn't read Part 1, which explains GC tuning tradeoffs and addresses the two examples you mentioned. Part 1 debunks the dishonest marketing from Google around Go's GC when it was originally released, and discusses the tradeoffs that weren't disclosed.
But he didn't say that. That's your own ridiculous emotional projection. The article contains very thoughtful criticism backed by detailed analysis. I don't think you even bothered to read the full articles (there is a part 1). The final sentence was, "Overall, it looks to me like the Java guys are winning the low latency game.", and that's a fair conclusion.
But I wasn't talking about Artificial Intelligence or problem solving. I am talking about Actual Intelligence, specifically human level intelligence.
If we build AI we could only know if its conscious if we know what conscious is, and that is something we do not know, and perhaps will never know. It could be fundamentally beyond our comprehension.