|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2|
You are certainly not the only one seeing performance issues with 4.2. I go back and forth between 4.2 and 3.8 every day depending on the project I need to work on and the difference is quiet noticeable even on very fast hardware. The part I notice the most is the lengthy close all editors process. After drilling down into some task and opening a few dozen editors, clearing workbench of open editors takes several seconds. I can literally watch tabs disappear one by one. The same operation is practically instantaneous on 3.8.
For stability, user experience and performance reasons, you will find that many third party distros have stayed on 3.8 for Juno.
I donât begrudge 4.x its growing pains. It is a complex technological shift with a lot of promise. What I find most troubling is the decision process that led to the use of 4.2 for Juno distros. When the decision was made, it was plainly evident that 4.2 wasnât going to match 3.8 on any of the quality metrics. IDE users might have been ok with quality drop if 4.2 delivered compelling new functionality that you couldnât get in 3.8, yet there is no tangible functional delta. The value of 4.x platform is for RCP developers and to certain limited extent for IDE plugin developers. Certainly not for IDE users. The refreshed look-n-feel has been touted as a big end user feature of 4.2, but the new look-n-feel itself has numerous issues that leave it looking like an unfinished project.
Sadly, the user reaction that weâve been seeing over the last several months has been entirely predictable.
It's an issue not always reproducable.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote: