“Pick the tool that gets you to working code by lunch, not the one that promises everything by next quarter.”
NetBeans vs Eclipse is the coffee talk this season. I keep seeing the same pattern in teams I visit and projects I help clean up. One group swears by a bare Eclipse install with a gallery of plugins. The other opens NetBeans, hits New Project, and ships. Both camps write good Java. The difference shows up when deadlines hit and when the build breaks at 2 AM.
The morning after the plugin party
Last week I walked into a project where the build machine was stuck. Eclipse 3.1 on dev laptops, a zoo of plugins, and a set of wiki pages that read like treasure maps. It worked on two laptops, failed on three, and the new hire could not run tests. The most used phrase in that room was which plugin version do you have.
We moved the build to Ant, standard JUnit, and a plain project layout. NetBeans 5.0 opened the repo and knew what to do. CVS support out of the box. Ant tasks right in the UI. Tomcat started from inside the IDE with one click. No scavenger hunt for the right plugin update site. The team did not switch IDEs that day. They just saw that a preconfigured tool trims waste when time gets tight.
Eclipse is quick, no question. The editor feels light. There is joy in a clean base and the power to add only what you need. But that power cuts both ways. The plugin story is the ace and the trap. NetBeans is heavier at startup and not shy about shipping features. In return it behaves the same on every machine in the room. That consistency makes meetings shorter.
Real work beats checkbox features
I write Swing apps for internal tools, small web apps with JSP and a servlet or two, and the odd EJB when a client insists. I live in CVS most days, Subversion more and more. I run Ant, dabble with Maven 2, and debug on local Tomcat or GlassFish builds. On that mix, NetBeans 5.0 ships ready. The new GUI builder Matisse is sweet for forms. Refactoring is solid. The profiler is baked in. The visual web pack is not my thing yet, but it is there.
On Eclipse 3.1, I can match the setup. I pull in WTP for web projects, a profiler, Subversion support like Subclipse, and a Tomcat plugin. It runs fine once you tame the versions. The editor refactoring is sharp. Content assist feels faster for some folks. Projects open quick. But when a teammate updates a plugin and you do not, weird little differences creep in. Build paths shift. Wizards change a field name. Settings hide in new places. People lose minutes that turn into hours.
Deep dive one: Project setup and build tooling
What matters: how fast a new dev can pull the repo, run the build, and contribute code. That first hour sets the tone. We need repeatable builds and projects that match what our servers expect.
NetBeans 5.0 leans on Ant and a straight project structure. I can import an existing Ant build without bending the knee to an IDE specific layout. The IDE reads my build file, exposes targets, and I can run tests with JUnit in a nice runner. New Project for a web app gives me a ready structure that Tomcat or GlassFish will accept. No extra install for server control. That matters when the new intern joins and you want them shipping a tiny fix the same day.
Eclipse 3.1 needs WTP to feel like a web shop. Once it is in place, it can mirror the same structure. Ant support is there as well. The catch is the path to get there. You need the right WTP build that matches your Eclipse build. You need a server adapter that works with your Tomcat version. If you go the Maven route, you will chase a plugin or two. It is all doable, and many teams do it well, but the margin for error is real. A clean base is great until the sixth plugin breaks the fourth one.
Takeaway: if your team refreshes laptops often, or if you bring new folks in every month, a battery included setup pays back fast. If your team is small and stable and you like to fine tune, Eclipse plus curated plugins can be perfect. The skill here is not picking a winner but choosing the shortest path to repeatable builds.
Deep dive two: UI, refactoring, and debugging where you live all day
Editing: Both are strong. Templates, quick fix, rename, extract method, safe delete. Eclipse feels a bit snappier when you jump around giant files. NetBeans has sharpened a lot in 5.0 and the hints are helpful. The difference is not night and day anymore.
Refactoring: The common moves are solid on both sides. Rename across projects works. Move class, change method signature, inline, pull up, push down. Eclipse shows more little helpers when you hold the cursor on a warning. NetBeans counters with a smoother flow in some of the wizards. Call it a tie for the basics.
GUI building: This is where NetBeans steps out. Matisse lets you drop controls and it snaps them in place with sane spacing. The generated code is readable. It respects your hand edits. If you build Swing screens for users in the next room, this saves hours. Eclipse sticks with SWT for its own UI and leaves Swing builders to third parties. There are options, just not in the box. If your app is Swing heavy, the path of least pain points to NetBeans.
Debugging: Both attach to local and remote JVMs. Breakpoints, watches, conditional stops, hot swap. NetBeans ships a profiler that you can start from inside the IDE, which makes hunting leaks easier. Eclipse users can add a profiler plugin, but again we are back to plugin roulette. When you are knee deep in a leak on an app server, that extra install step feels bigger than it looks on paper.
Deep dive three: VCS, team flow, and performance rough edges
Version control: NetBeans ships with CVS that just works and Subversion support you can add from the official update center. The UI is clear, with diff views that do not fight you. Eclipse has Team features baked in and CVS is strong. For Subversion, Subclipse is good, but it is an extra piece with its own update site story. If your team is moving from CVS to Subversion this season, NetBeans makes that jump feel calm.
Team flow: The more identical your setup, the smoother your day. NetBeans wins on sameness. Everyone downloads the same installer and gets the same kit. You can export settings and share them. Eclipse can be that way if you lock plugin versions and keep a shared update site or a local mirror. Most teams do not. They chase shiny new versions and suddenly two people cannot import the same project. This is not a fault of Eclipse as an editor. It is the human side of plugins.
Performance: Cold start favors Eclipse. NetBeans has improved, yet you still feel that first launch. Once projects are open, both are fine on a decent laptop. Memory use can spike on both with big workspaces. Keep an eye on JDK versions since some early Mustang builds change the feel. If you spend your day opening and closing the IDE, pick the one that annoys you less on start. If you keep it open for days, the difference fades.
Servers and app stacks: If you run Tomcat, NetBeans is friendly from the start. If you run GlassFish or look at the early builds, the path is smooth too. Eclipse with WTP handles Tomcat fine once set up. For JBoss fans, both sides work with the right adapters. The real trick is not the adapter. It is making sure every dev has the same one. That theme keeps coming back because it is where hours go to die.
Pragmatism over plugins
Plugins are fun. They give a sense of power and control. The truth in most shops is boring. You want fewer surprises. You want less to explain to the next hire. You want the same right click menu on every desk. NetBeans 5.0 leans into that with a kitchen sink install that is consistent. Eclipse 3.1 gives you a lean core that can be turned into anything with care and patience. Both can take you to the same place. The cost curves differ.
If your team writes Swing, builds simple web apps, and lives in Ant with CVS or Subversion, the shortest route is NetBeans. If your team enjoys crafting a custom tool chain and has one or two people who treat the IDE like a project, Eclipse shines. The worst spot is the middle, where nobody owns the setup and everyone tweaks in private. That is where time goes missing.
There is buzz about the next Eclipse train and what it will bring. NetBeans keeps rolling out quality of life updates. Java 5 features are mainstream now, and the IDEs support the same language tricks. The decision is not about who has the shiniest refactor today. It is about how fast you go from clone to commit and how calm your week stays when a laptop dies or a new teammate sits down.
So my rule of thumb is simple:
- Pick the tool that ships ready for your stack. If that is NetBeans for you, lean in. If you have a mature Eclipse setup that you can clone in minutes, keep it.
- Keep builds outside the IDE. Ant or Maven should run on a headless box the same way they run on your desk. Make the IDE a helper, not the source of truth.
- Freeze versions. If you go with Eclipse plugins, treat them like dependencies. Lock them. Mirror them. Document them.
- Favor sameness over novelty. Your users will not care which refactor menu you clicked. They will care that the release shipped on time.
This is not a fan letter. I keep both installed. I open NetBeans when I want to start fast and keep friction low. I open Eclipse when I am joining a project that already lives there or when I feel like trying a new editor trick. My sense from client work is that pragmatism beats plugin hunts nine days out of ten.
We can argue editor polish all night. We can compare keyboard shortcuts and debate which hint is smarter. That debate is fun after a long day of shipping. During the day, the winner is the one that stays out of the way, installs clean, and lets the whole team move as one. For many shops right now, that points to NetBeans 5.0.
Tomorrow I will probably open Eclipse to try a new plugin someone swears will save me ten minutes a week. Then I will remember the build that broke last Tuesday and smile. Tools change. Deadlines do not. Choose the one that helps you write code today.