Preview of CLion Nova, which uses the ReSharper C++/Rider C++ language engine

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Use of auto vs explicit types in C++

  • Ongoing debate about when to use auto:
    • Pro-auto: good when code is type-agnostic, type is obvious from RHS (e.g., make_unique, iterators), or writing the full type is noisy. Helps refactoring by changing types in one place.
    • Pro-explicit types: helps readability, code review, navigation, and grepping, especially in large codebases and public APIs. Overuse of auto can make code feel “untyped.”
  • Some argue types are central context; others say understanding purpose and behavior matters more than exact type names.
  • Concern: when a refactor intentionally changes semantics and new type is not fully compatible, auto can hide where scrutiny is needed.
  • Multiple style guides (Google, Unreal, Godot) are cited to justify restricting or forbidding auto, especially for reviewability.
  • Disagreement over relying on IDEs: some say you shouldn’t be “crippled” without IDE type hints; others argue modern workflows should leverage IDE capabilities.

CLion Nova and language engine change

  • Nova replaces CLion’s existing C++ engine with the ReSharper/Rider engine, running out-of-process.
  • Reported benefits: faster refactoring, symbol search, and overall responsiveness, especially on large projects where classic CLion (with clangd) became sluggish.
  • Some see the announcement as overhyped; others insist it’s a fundamental engine swap, not just a minor changelog.

Performance and IDE comparisons

  • Experiences differ:
    • Some find VS Code + clangd the best C/C++ setup and call CLion slow and clunky.
    • Others say VS Code lags badly on large projects while CLion remains usable.
    • Some report both CLion and VS Code struggling on mid-sized (~500k LOC) codebases.
  • VS Code criticized for weaker C++ support (e.g., missing call hierarchy, “mediocre” debugging) compared with JetBrains and Visual Studio.
  • Visual Studio still preferred by some, especially on Windows, though others feel its quality has declined.

JetBrains ecosystem, Rust, and fragmentation

  • Confusion/annoyance over multiple overlapping JetBrains products (CLion Classic/Nova, Rider, ReSharper C++, RustRover).
  • Some praise the move to a single C++ engine as reducing fragmentation.
  • Frustration that Rust support is being split into RustRover vs plugins; worry that Rust in CLion/IntelliJ may be weakened or removed.
  • Users working on mixed Rust + C/C++ projects want a single IDE with strong support for both.

Licensing, previews, and “free testing”

  • Complaint that Nova preview effectively uses users as free testers and is only “free while testing,” then requires payment.
  • Counterpoint: preview is optional, aimed at existing customers, and projects remain portable (e.g., CMake to any IDE).
  • Some dislike JetBrains’ subscription/update model and report confusion around “fallback” versions after expiry; others consider the cost worthwhile.