IntelliJ is excellent for doing the code review. The git and diff is top notch.
Then there is the DataGrip stuff, I use it all the time.
And the HTTP client (.http files!) is also good. It has built in scripting.
Notice here that none of these activities is writing code.
This enhances the understanding of what I am building with the agents. I’m sure the lazy dev will just skip this and will never see any of this, just let Claude completely take over.
Glassbreakers: Champions of Moss (same people who made Moss and Moss 2) based a lot of their design on Brass Tactics. I would say check it out but unfortunately the studio (Polyarc) went under shortly after publishing it so probably won't be seeing many updates and I'm not sure if it is even playable anymore.
It did suffer from player base problems you were basically always against bots or very high level players, but I never felt a VR UX (or any UX almost) feel so good and intuitive. It's a bit sad I feel like there is some alternate reality where a game like this would have been huge but there just doesn't seem to be the market there anymore.
I have Ghostty with Claude open with one tab per project. Then I have IntelliJ open also with one tab per project.
I find this setup works great for actually participating in the development. To understand what is happening and keep the mental model of what the project is about. Review in progress work in IntelliJ, use the Git, Database and REST(.http files) in the IDE as the agents generate the code.
I don't see a problem with this setup is it really that uncommon? Have people stopped using TOOLS completely? That said I don't have much interest in these JetBrains AI products, at least not currently.
Similar workflow myself - claude cli + intellij project per worktree. Works well, intellij IDE tools are still unmatched compared to using Zed / VSCode / etc.
The "Air Alpha" plugin isn't bad to move the claude cli into the IDE window itself - but not essential.
This is an interesting "what if" story. What if they pushed on with CAOS, would it have been awesome or would the Amiga never have existed as a commercial product. We will never know.
Alas I suspect that no combination of business and technical decisions could have allowed Commodore to succeed long term. They never had the scale or product market fit to succeed in the 32 bit era. Apple barely made it.
Even so, good business decisions were very rare at Commodore post-Tramiel. The only CEO who seemed to have a functional head on his shoulders was Thomas Rattigan, and he got canned after a year as CEO because Irving Gould was jealous of him. That the company survived as long as it did under the direct rule of Gould and then Mehdi Ali was nothing short of miraculous.
I'm not sure Commodore would have made it to 2000 even under better leadership, but I'm absolutely certain were it not for Gould's cupidity and Ali's braindead decrees, the company probably wouldn't have sunk as hard and fast as it did.
This is one of my favorite things with the Mac. I feel it is very intuitive me moving the app to Applications, then just move it to trash if it sucks and it is completely gone.
setup.exe .pkg installers make me feel dirty because I hav enough control over how it will fuck up my system or not.
I think most of the complexity is around the concept of disk images. If the app was just distributed in a zip file (like many in fact are) then you just unzip it, and the application is right there. You can move it to /Applications if you want (and many apps offer this) but it's not necessary.
Disk images seem to be much rarer on other platforms, and are usually only used for images of optical disks. Even the concept of "ejection" can be confusing, especially since when mounted disk images appear almost identical to actual physical removable media. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind why mounting disk images isn't relegated to a vestigal "power user" feature by now, since it seems like zip files (especially in appledouble format) can serve the same needs for most normal user flows.
The moving step is not intuitive, read other comments, it's also redundant in a better designed system. And of course it's not completely gone, but leaves plenty of garbage behind.
And of course you have no control over it
The app icon approach only give the illusion of control. That may be worth something too, but whether you run a .pkg or a program, the app developer can do whatever they want with the permissions you grant it.
There is an advantage to being able to move a program to any locations and run it from there, and while the same can easily be done on Windows (just make one big .exe!), it's not expected for users to just move install directories around.
That said, programs break the same way: configuration pointing at wrong directories, permissions going wacky, you name it. It just seems to go wrong less often on macOS because of developer expectations.
Then there is the DataGrip stuff, I use it all the time.
And the HTTP client (.http files!) is also good. It has built in scripting.
Notice here that none of these activities is writing code.
This enhances the understanding of what I am building with the agents. I’m sure the lazy dev will just skip this and will never see any of this, just let Claude completely take over.
reply