Talk:Comparison of integrated development environments

Restructure
At the moment this page is a "Comparison of IDEs by language" and duplicates information across the tables such as Licence, Platform, Developer and Latest stable release. I think this page would be improved with a main table that lists all the IDEs and compares which languages they support and which generic features they have (GUI builder, etc), like this:

Then there only needs to be language-specific tables if necessary. What do you think? Jwmurphy (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion about this in the archive. Basically, the main argument against is that most people looking for an IDE already have a particular language in mind, so combining all the languages together makes the table far less readable. Sortable tables would help, but currently the function to do this is limited; you cannot have layered column headers. The column headers (for example in the C and Java tables) are already a little jumbled because of this. A relatively easy compromise is that, if you want to catalog IDEs that support multiple languages, you can add an additional table to the article, without changing the current ones. But if your goal is to condense and shorten the article, that probably won't help. At any rate, the amount of redundancy is small, and as it stands I don't think a restructuring would improve the usability of this page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there are currently 10 languages on this page and that is likely to grow before it shrinks. Creating columns for these languages would end up with a lot of blanks. Ultimately it'd be trading redundant horizontal screen space for redundant vertical space. Between the two, however, vertical space is a lot easier to cope with since vertical scrolling is already expected and there's less dependence on things like whether you are viewing it with a 4:3 or widescreen monitor. Another point is the discussion above about which fields to add to particular tables; a lot of comparative features are specific to certain languages. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read the archive, but obviously not closely enough. OK, I can see the advantage of the language-specific tables for ease of use and readability, but I still think that the redundancy is considerable and prone to inconsistency and errors.  I'll have a play around and get back to you.  :) Jwmurphy (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jwmurphy. I use both Eclipse for java and Visual studio for c# and would like to contribute to a features table about whats included and missing from both for easy comparisons. I'm not in the uncommon position of having the ide influence my choice of language, especially for new projects. The argument presented here are directly equivalent to pragmatic RDBMS design (using something like hibernate). Either you have one massive table with lots of nulls (not good for readability nor for normalization), or you have lots small tables for each language (not good for making comparisons by eye, nor for creating indexes in a rdms). The pragmatic solution is to have a fairly sized table for comparable features and then also have the smaller tables for features that are really language specific. You may also find that the big table needs to be broken by CATEGORY of language (say for strongly typed and weakly typed languages), but I would only recommend doing this later after we do the first restructuring. Willing to help in the restructure, so please get back to us and let's get this ball on the road. --Dmg46664 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you can do this by adding a new table (or even, a new article) that exists to compare multi-language IDEs. It's not necessary to restructure the existing tables and introduce a different set of problems. There's always going to be a split over which mode is preferred, and absolute consensus is unlikely to exist either way. So feel free to just do your own thing without being destructive. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jwmurphy, today most IDE have plugin to support wide range of language. The current organization is a mess. We can have some colones with the most current language (C, PHP, Python, ...) and a colones with "others supported language" with comma separated language name. Gagarine (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Current list is definitely not good, I agree with the comments above. This list may serve those who are looking for IDEs for a particular language but many IDEs support multiple languages and a lot of people would be looking for a general list of IDEs 82.194.57.136 (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jwmurphy was completely right and unfortunately now 14 years later it shows for anyone to see, the lemma is a pure mess, inconsistent, and also with huge gaps. E.g. "Ruby" has only 6 or so listed, while MOST of the IDEs listed at Python would do the job, too. So what now, copy 30 IDEs to Ruby and all other languages that these IDEs support? That makes no sense. The proposal of Jmurphy should be realized now to fix this mess. --Tomakos (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Smalltalk
I found it a shame that the mother of all IDEs (ST80 and its offspring) is not even mentioned. Also, what about Lisp systems? 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.254.73 (talk)

Eclipse ADT
The link is misleading because TEDickey (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Eclipse ADT" was a project proposal which did not come to fruition (see for example this).
 * As of January 2014, "Eclipse ADT" has come to be associated with the Android Development Tools
 * The product listed for Ada is not part of the Eclipse project

I fixed the problem you identified, in this edit. Now it correctly identifies it at Eclipse with the AonixADT plugin. I removed your discussion tag in that edit, because the problem you identified in the article is fixed now and I'm fairly certain you'd approve of my edit that fixed it. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

PowerShell
Can we add in a section for PowerShell IDEs, such as Windows PowerShell ISE and Dell PowerGUI? There are already sections for the other scripting languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.42.214.113 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability (II)
As clearly mentioned in the lead, entries should be notable. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform or product catalog - I have removed a lot of unsourced non-notable additions from COI editors, and added an editnotice linking to the relevant guidelines. Consensus for inclusion criteria can change of course, but bloated indiscriminate lists of unsourced stuff and non-notable self promotion should be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove "Latest Stable Release" header
The "Latest Stable Release" column is not very useful; in that it gets stale extremely quickly (e.g. Xcode is listed as being 2 years old). I would suggest instead an indicator of whether the IDE is still being developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.70.205 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * By using wikidata it should always be quite up to date. Ebukadneza (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

VSCodium under the 'Java' heading
Could someone clarify why VSCodium is being noted instead of VSCode itself? Although VSCodium is an open-source build of VSCode, these are generally not considered to be IDEs. Additionally, while VSCode does come with out-of-the-box support for JavaScript, HTML, and CSS, it requires an extension pack to work with Java. It may be helpful to mention this in the article, as is done in other instances where VSCode is mentioned. 145.33.121.1 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * VS Code is currently listed under 'Visual Basic .NET', but it is neither billed as an IDE nor dedicated to any one language. I see no reason it should even be mentioned on this page. Walkersam (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Common Lisp Intellij Plugin/Visual Code plugin
There are plugins available that bring common lisp ide to Intellij/Visual Code, maybe they should be added? 94.74.252.2 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

CoreIDE provides better features than many IDEs listed here
Most of the IDE's listed here are outdated. No one is using them any more. On the other side recently developed CoreIDE comes free with all the features any modern IDE provides. Shouldn't that be listed here? I believe if a developer wants to compare the IDEs then they should see all the modern IDEs not the legacy IDEs which are not even updated or released in the past few years.

The title of this article is "Comparison of integrated development environments" then it should compare all the IDEs. It is misleading the reader to assume that there are not anymore IDEs available. If you can not add all the IDEs in the list then better rename the title to- "Comparison of notable integrated development environments"

CoreIDE website- https://coreide.com/ SE.SAURAV (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)