MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412904648 · doi:10.47363/jeast/2025(7)323

A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Popular Integrated Development Environments for Frontend Development

2025· article· en· W4412904648 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsThe Journal of Student Science and Technology
FundersStrong
KeywordsQualitative analysisDevelopment (topology)Computer scienceSystems engineeringQualitative researchEngineeringMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of popular integrated development environments (IDEs) used in front-end development. Focusing on both market usage data and qualitative comparisons of key feature sets, we examine Visual Studio Code, WebStorm, Sublime Text, IntelliJ IDEA, Zed, Eclipse Theia, and Visual Studio Community edition. We discuss adoption trends, core strengths, and usability aspects—including ease of configuring extensions and plugins—while also reporting approximated performance and startup measurements seen on our test system. This paper offers practical guidance for developers and organizations in selecting an IDE that best fits their workflow and project needs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering and Applied Sciences TechnologySame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207