We can start with basic things: the contrast, in default settings in dark mode for both. In theses conditions, Rider contrast is too low for a screen you have to stare all the day, compared to VS Code.
Commonly used item are in sub menus (in vscode they are sorted by most commonly items on top), common shortcuts requires finger gymnastics.
- it has bad defaults for theme (which I bet most devs change immediately anyways on every IDE)
- “common items” (which when unspecified could be assumed to be subjective to each persons workflow) are hidden in submenus?
- “common shortcuts” (again unspecified) require stretching (again, something trivially changed)
Unless you have more these feel not only extremely weak but extremely subjective. Please avoid trying to phrase your opinions as some fact it’s a tiring trope these days.
- “default theme sucks and is bad accessibility”. On its own this is objectively provable of course except when you’re talking about probably the single most commonly changed setting in a coders primary IDE other than maybe font. Calling the app objectively bad because it chose a bad default theme that gets immediately changed is a weak take
- “hidden menu options” this is the subjective one as I called out unless you can provide examples that are universal.
- “bad keyboard shortcuts” is subjective for the most part but even still is a widely changed option and very easy to fix. So calling the app objectively bad for this is also a weak take.
The items in VS Code are sorted the chance you have to use it depending of the context. In rider, commonly used items are in submenu (rename hiding in refactoring), less commonly used items are not in the submenus.
For the keyboard shorcuts, again you can argue practicality as an objective metric. The number of keys for a combo and distance between the keys have a big practicality factor, and Jetbrains IDEs loves F-keys (that you can't reach if you hold a keyboard like ergonomists recommends)
No, it’s subjectively bad for you.
It really grinds my gears when people use “objectively” when being objective is to deal purely in unbiased observable, repeatable facts.
Your justification starts first with screen contrast - something that is truly in the eye of the beholder.
Then you go on about “finger gymnastics” for shortcuts - again something that you (and yes I don’t disagree others as well) suffer from.
Neither are issues that have bothered me one iota - so much so that your mention is really the first time I’ve thought about either.
However you then compare this to another app that also has many detractors thus creating an instant bias.
Due to the poor font rendering and colors picked in Rider, by default there is a contrast of 4.77 which is just meet the minimum ratio, and for an app you stare all the day at, it's not enough.
From the firefox docs:
> Having good color contrast on your site benefits all your users
It's written all your users, it's not subjective.
Which is what? Is it a well defined fact?
So, they’re recommendations, not facts.
A fact is not a recommendation.
You can cling to this until the cows come home, but anything visual is dependent on the viewer. It’s not a fact. It’s subjective.
Anything else is subjective.
A UI can never be objectively bad because it is based upon how someone sees it.
For me, Gimp has a subjectivity bad UI because I’ve never been able to get my head around it.
Other people find it’s perfect and that it’s really easy to use.
Both statements are subjective.
“Objective” and “subjective” are both words that have well defined accepted dictionary definitions.
I presume the answer is yes, from what you said. Then it becomes less of an issue, if not an non-issue.
IDEs and code editors are tools which we live with for a long time. Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. Otherwise we'd be all using notepad.exe for coding.
Not having the defaults organized by your tastes is not a valid reason for disqualifying a tool out of the gate.
As a counter example, Electron's font rendering is nothing to drool over, from my perspective, and doesn't give an extra point for using it in my case.
The OC point was that VS Code UX "is a mess by comparison", and VS Code UX is fully configurable, therefor if you have a problem with VS Code UX, you are complaining about it's defaults settings.
Also Jetbrains IDEs font rendering is simply awful, it doesn't hold the comparison to electron: https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png
If you still need to customize everything then, well, what did you actually gain over assembling your environment by yourself from actually competent pieces?
That said, every IDE is opinionated about workflows, and if you’re open to adapt to that, the defaults makes sense. Otherwise you slowly hammer it to the shape you want.
For me an IDEs greatest selling point or the infinite flexibility it provides.