The central point of the article missed right over you. The critique is about the culture that surrounds: changes in UI for no real reason other than subjectivist opinions, design trends, fashion or what-others-are-doing, unoriginality, homogenization and frameworks, and the complete disregard for professional users and their infantilization.
Furthermore, changes need to be evaluated against retraining millions of people with new UI. This part seems to be missing in the calculation.
This happens but stating that the Jetbrains changes fall under this category is baseless speculation.
> This part seems to be missing in the calculation
What makes you say that?
I don't think anyone commenting here is in any doubt that needless/bad UI changes do happen in products. Noone's debating that general broad point. The thesis put forward by the article is that Jetbrains' changes specifically are an example of this trend. And it's very clear that the article is so lazily researched that none of the points listed do anything to support that specific thesis.
I think these are reasons why UI has regressed continually in last 10-15 years. No one speaks up. Usually casted as “UI always changes, get used to it. Grumpy people will complain for any change. See Gmail.” I can understand why Apple changes UI: it’s a luxury/fashion company that makes computers and phones.
But a professional tool needs to follow UI changes that are not justified beyond flimsy reasons? Used by millions to make a living?
The onus is on designers to justify their aesthetic/fashion instincts, to justify their tendency to churn user interfaces, the tendency to turn highly functional and dense tools into fisher price toys in the name of minimalism and infantilization users.
I agree with everything you said, but I don't see how it's relevant to my comment, unless you misread me?
UI in general is regressed continually - completely agree with you there, yes.
The article however is specifically about Jetbrains. Jetbrains may be regressing their UI. Perhaps someone should spend some time looking at Jetbrains' new UIs and analyse whether it does in fact constitute yet another example of regressed UI.
This article doesn't do that - it makes a very lazy & exceptionally poor case.
Furthermore, changes need to be evaluated against retraining millions of people with new UI. This part seems to be missing in the calculation.