What kind of hardware are you running on? I was previously using my laptop for all my java development. It is a Dell Latitude CPx PIII/600 w/ 256MB of RAM. I have to work with two very large (several hundred files each) projects simultaneously. Win2K base would consume about 70MB of RAM. Running IDEA would consume around 150-200MB. Then I would launch Tomcat. This cause a tremendous swap storm on my laptop, which, with the laptops pathetic disk performance, was a real pain in the ass. My average available physical memory was around 5MB, but total commit charge was around 230-300MB. My main frustration was that listening to MP3s while working was impossible b/c Winamp would slow the box down...
I have recently moved all my Java development to a desktop system with 512MB of RAM and a 2GHz Athlon processor (and obviously a much faster disk). Anyhow, this is a noname box that cost the company about $550--so we're not talking high-end workstation here. With the added memory and faster disk I have found IDEA to be extremely responsive and efficient. The only areas where I've noticed any considerable wait time is when switching into IDEA after doing a sizable refresh of my source base from outside of the IDEA environment. This is reasonable considering that IDEA has to reparse many files. Anyhow, I keep all my files local (oddly enough, except for the vss executable...), so that's not a problem for me. I do see an exception about FileWatcher2K not being in the lib path or something, but everything seems to be working so I ignore it. In the end, performance still blows away anything I've seen from NetBeans or JBuilder. Unfortunately, XEmacs and vim lack support features that IntelliJ has for refactoring and code inspection and completion, so I basically don't see what anyone is complaining about. If you want a text editor, why pay for IDEA? xemacs and vim are free. If you want an IDE, consider what the alternatives are and you'll see that IDEA is way better than the competition (Unless you're working for a big company with teams in the 20+ range where some of the other IDEs provide better team support). Just my US$.02. sw > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikolay Nikolov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Eap-bugs] Re: Performance issues > > > Forgot to mention, I'm not using EJB. > And also wanted to emphasize on the delays when editing A, B > and C. The > editor is unpleasant to use with about 1-2 sec (of course I > have no way of > measuring how much exactly it is) time to catch up on each word. > Autocomplete is slow too. > > To be precise, making a pause (1-2sec) after typing a word > causes the parser > to pick up speed, and then typing anything takes another 1-2 > sec to appear. > > If need be I can describe the structure of the files (I can't > really send > them)... > Regards, > --Nikolay > > Btw, just saw a type in the original post: D has many short > methods and > **C** (not D) has fewer but much longer methods. > > > "Nikolay Nikolov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > andbi6$tad$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:andbi6$tad$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I just did an experiment with 4 files: > > A - 6,700 lines > > B - 6,000 lines > > C - 1,800 lines > > D - 1,400 lines > > > > Files A, B are very long files that consist mostly of long > methods, and > some > > inner classes. > > Files C, D differ mostly in level of complexity, D is class > with many > short > > methods, D has few but very long methods. > > > > Parse times: > > A, #650: initial 45sec, after minor changes 20-30sec > > A, #651: initial 60sec, after minor changes consistently > 25sec (and 60sec > > once) > > > > B, #650: initial 25sec, after minor changes 25-30sec > > B, #651: initial 25sec, after minor changes 20-25sec > > > > C, #650: initial 10sec, after minor changes 9sec > > C, #651: initial 12sec, after minor changes 9sec > > > > D, #650: initial ?, after minor changes 3sec > > D, #651: initial 10sec, after minor changes 3sec > > > > Editing all files (D less noticeably), causes delays when typing. > > ----------------------------- > > > > IMHO initial time to parse is ok, but a more intelligent incremental > parser > > will make a big difference. > > Hope this helps. > > --nikolay > > > > > > "Eugene Belyaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > anctdh$c14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:anctdh$c14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Hi, > > > > > > In #651 we have fixed a number of performance issues, so > please check it > > and > > > report asap. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Eugene Belyaev > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Eap-bugs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-bugs > _______________________________________________ Eap-bugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-bugs
